Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Trudy Harrison]

I will just make some progress.

I will set out what has been achieved since 2010, with a wide range of valuable reforms that make a difference to animal welfare: implementing a revised welfare at slaughter regime and introducing CCTV in all slaughterhouses; banning traditional battery cages for laying hens and permitting beak trimming only by infrared technology; and raising standards for meat chickens. We have significantly enhanced companion animal welfare by revamping the local authority licencing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

If there is one thing I know, it is that my constituents care passionately about animal welfare. My inbox is full of emails about the importance of this topic to them. The scrapping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the prevarication on display today are, frankly, astonishing. I am baffled that Conservative Members cannot see how the withdrawal of the Bill makes constituents question whether this Government even care about delivering on their promises. As we have learned this week, trust matters to our constituents, and I know that my constituents care. They care about animal welfare and they care about the Government delivering on their pledges.

The dropping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill also creates huge worries for zoos across the country, including Chester zoo in my constituency, which runs world-leading conservation research and work on animal welfare issues. It is very worried that, without this Bill, the uncertainty surrounding the legislative framework within which zoos operate will be perpetuated. This is causing it real difficulties in allocating the charity’s spending. It is, in effect, in limbo. The Government need to engage with the zoo sector quickly to bring forward the central aims of this important Bill.

Chester zoo is not the only way my area is leading on animal welfare issues. Cheshire West and Chester Council was one of the first to ban permanently the practice of trail hunting on council-owned land, and the National Trust soon followed suit. The changes introduced by the previous Labour Government have stood the test of time, from the bans on foxhunting and fur farming to the action taken to stop experimentation on great apes and the testing of cosmetics on animals.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I hope that today we can have an element of consensus and that the Government will reconsider their position. It seems strange, when the official Opposition are backing a Government Bill, to not want to progress that Bill for the benefit of animals.

[Samantha Dixon]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that we do not stop here; we should lead the way on animal welfare. The belief in protecting animal welfare should not come and go depending on what is politically convenient or fashionable at the time—it should be a matter of principle and conviction. There is no need to go round the houses with this issue, introducing what appears to be a parliamentary pick-and-mix approach. We need urgently to go from A to B as simply and as quickly as possible. I will be voting to bring this Bill back, and I encourage Members across the House to do the same.

Food Price Inflation and Food Banks

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Beth Winter]

I certainly do. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point—we are the fifth richest nation in the world and people are being forced to take such steps. It is absolutely disgraceful and shocking. I will come to food prices in a moment, so I thank her for that intervention.

It was also only yesterday that the Office for National Statistics reported another monthly fall in real-terms pay. For 17 months in a row, pay has risen below the rate of inflation. That is a pay cut. Indeed, the TUC says that workers have lost more than £1,000 from their pay over the last year. What is clear—beyond doubt—is that wages are not driving inflation; if anything, they are a drag on it.

In a new poll for More in Common UK published today, 75% of those polled said that the cost of living is one of the biggest issues facing the country and 45% said they are shopping around more for groceries; when looking at those bills going up, it is increasingly the weekly food shop. The Office for National Statistics reported earlier this month that food and non-alcoholic drink inflation was at 19.2% and that around half of adults are buying less food when they go shopping.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for her work on this important issue. One piece of analysis has even shown that the prices of some basic food items are rising by 30%. My hon. Friend is right about the scale of the challenge facing many families. Is she aware of the pressure facing those in work in addition to the pressure for those on benefits? In my area, many people living in the suburbs—people who have jobs—are now attending food banks to keep their families from falling into terrible poverty.

[Beth Winter]

Yes, I am very aware of those people. I work closely with food banks in my community, as I know other Members do, so I know that there has been a significant increase in the number of people in work who are accessing food banks, which is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable for anybody to be using them.

Why are prices going up? We have to be clear that there are multiple causes. Droughts, climate disaster, fuel costs and the Ukraine war have all had an impact. However, as Unite the union has set out in real detail in its research on profiteering, which looks at the profits of companies in the FTSE 350, all of this has been made worse by profiteering along global supply chains, from agribusiness multinationals to high street supermarkets. It is not just Unite saying that. The European Central Bank recently said:

“Profit growth remained very strong, which suggested that the pass-through of higher costs to higher selling prices remained robust.”

The top eight UK food manufacturers made profits of £22.9 billion in 2021, with both profits and margins up 21% on 2019, with Nestlé, Mondelēz and Unilever all benefiting from double-digit growth in profit margins. In the supermarket sector, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda—the top three UK supermarkets—nearly doubled their combined profits to £3.2 billion in 2021 compared with 2019.

Supermarkets are turning over hundreds of millions of pounds and handing dividend payments to wealthy investors, who are obviously not the people struggling to eat. In 2021-22, a total of £704 million was paid by Tesco in dividends and last July the company also paid shareholders £1 billion in its share buyback scheme.

The problem is that people who are reliant on low pay and social security are funding these exorbitant dividend payments and I really do not understand how the Government can justify that; I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. People who cannot even afford to go to supermarkets are going to food banks. This is a crisis—a cost of living crisis—and it should not be allowed. We have taken action to control energy prices. When are we going to take action on the cost of food?

In Wales, where the Labour Government are in touch with ordinary people’s concerns, we are doing what we can, despite our underfunding by the UK Government. The Welsh Government are rolling out universal free school meals, which are now available in reception and years one and two, and they have a timetable to roll them out to all children in primary school. Think how much more quickly they would be rolled out in Wales if there was a fair, needs-based funding formula for central funds to the Welsh Government.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Before I start, I thank the Angling Trust, Surfers Against Sewage—I pay tribute to its work in coastal areas and inland—and many other groups that campaign on this important issue. I take this opportunity to talk about an unpleasant incident that happened in my constituency and neighbouring parts of Berkshire, which unfortunately illustrates the scale of the problem, the nature of what we are dealing with and, indeed, the need for urgent action—far more than has so far been committed to by the Government.

Earlier this month, there was a spill that lasted for 17 hours into a local brook called Foundry brook, sometimes known as Foudry brook, which feeds into the River Kennet, one of the main tributaries of the Thames. Ultimately, this sewage spill would have fed into the Thames at Reading and then gone onward to London. The spill happened in a beautiful rural setting of rolling countryside just outside Reading. It then passed the western edge of the town, went past the nature reserve, went through areas where people live nearby, with the backs of their gardens going down to the river, and went next to workplaces and right next to Green Park, which is a major science park in our area with thousands of employees who like to walk past the waterways. The spill carried on into the Kennet, went past County lock and into Reading town centre, through the area of the Oracle shopping centre and on past more terraced housing and more flats to Kennetmouth, where the Kennet joins the Thames. Ultimately, this dreadful slick would have continued through the rest of the Thames valley and into the sea. That is an appalling abuse that residents and people working nearby should not have to put up with. It is simply not acceptable that this type of pollution takes places in the 21st century.

I was near to Foundry brook a few weeks ago—it may have been at the time of the incident or slightly before—when I was getting ready to run the Reading half marathon. I could see and smell the water, and it really was unpleasant—that is the polite way to put it. It was deeply unpleasant. There was an awful smell and a strange tinge to the water. It did not look natural or right, despite the setting with beautiful willow trees, pollarded like something out of “The Wind in the Willows”, next to the waterway. We are talking about disgusting pollution, and there should be urgent action to tackle it. That is just one example in one community.

I thought the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) spoke beautifully about her coastal community. Inland, we also have wonderful and beautiful waterways that are full of wildlife, with large birds such as swans, smaller ones such as ducks, large fish such as pike, and a range of other fish and animals. All of this is being affected, as is people’s enjoyment, by these terrible sewage incidents. They simply should not be happening. This is happening around the country—a range of constituencies have been referenced to this afternoon—and it simply should not be continuing. I do think there is a need for urgent action now. There needs to be a proper plan, with automatic fines.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Henry Smith]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. I do not have a date, because obviously we do not yet know when the Bill will receive Royal Assent, but it is my understanding and belief that the Government are committed to this legislation and want it to come into force at the earliest opportunity. I echo my right hon. Friend’s remarks, and seek similar reassurances from the Minister when she responds at the end of the debate.

A recent opinion poll shows that almost 70% of South Africans believe that trophy hunting should be banned altogether. However, we are not here to ban trophy hunting, even though we may wish we could, because that is not our purpose or remit; the territorial extent of the legislation is Great Britain.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I offer him my support for his work on this matter. I also pass on the good wishes of my constituents, many of whom have been deeply concerned about this issue for some time. I have had a great deal of correspondence about it, and they appreciate the work that the hon. Gentleman is doing.

Regarding the territorial extent of the Bill, this legislation obviously affects the UK. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could update the Committee on any discussions he has had with the Government about their plans for training Border Force staff in this area, and what additional equipment those staff will have to enable them to scan for this material, should some hunters quite wrongly try to bring it into the UK.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is absolutely right; I think we have all been very much heartened by the support of our constituents, who have encouraged us to ensure that this legislation gets on to the statute book. I am grateful to the voluntary organisations that have for many years campaigned on this issue, raised awareness and ensured that we here in Parliament respond to their requests.

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about enforcement. We can pass all sorts of legislation in this place, and that is fine, but unless that legislation is enacted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire mentioned, and then enforced, it has little effect. I am sure that the Minister will have heard that point, and I will certainly pursue it. It is important that Border Force customs officials are aware of how people who wish to abuse or circumvent the ban might do so, and how to spot that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I share those concerns. I am having detailed discussions with international counterparts in subsequent months. I am afraid that I cannot provide any further detail on that specific point, but I agree with the premise of what needs to be achieved internationally to truly make a difference and conserve endangered species. An awful lot was achieved at the recent COP15, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended, including a commitment to protect 30% of land and sea and a whole host of other targets and goals to preserve nature and biodiversity.

Clause 1 makes provision for the import prohibition and also defines a hunting trophy for the purposes of the ban. This prohibition, without exemptions, goes much further than our current licensing system in clamping down on these imports. We are sending a clear message, addressing the public’s concerns and delivering our manifesto commitment. The ban will make sure that there is no possibility at all that imports to Great Britain could be putting the conservation of species abroad at risk. A ban is also practical to implement, avoiding ambiguity about what cases might or might not be covered.

The definition of a hunting trophy is drafted to maintain the effect of the current definition that is used for CITES controls. It will cover all items from trophy hunting. That approach means that we will not inadvertently have knock-on effects on other forms of trade under CITES that are not products from trophy hunting. Changing that definition could cause confusion about what is and is not covered, and disrupt other imports by businesses or individuals for other purposes, such as commercial trade in items.

Moving to clause 2, the Government committed to ban imports of trophies from endangered animals, and that is exactly what the Bill delivers. The clause ensures that our approach will be comprehensive, properly clamping down on imports of trophies from endangered animals. By cross-referencing annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulations, which implement appendices 1 and 2 of CITES, the Bill covers all animal species that are internationally agreed to be threatened or potentially threatened by international trade, including imports of hunting trophies. Thousands of species are covered by those annexes, and covering all those animals even though not all are trophy-hunted means that our policy is as clear and practical as possible. It is a clear and straightforward approach: there will be no imports of trophies from any annex A or B species. That is what the public expect, and it is what the Bill will deliver.

The Bill also includes, in clause 2(1), a power to add further species to the scope of the ban to make sure that nothing is missed and that trophy hunting pressure does not shift to target other endangered animals. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), made it clear that we will be using that power to list additional species of conservation concern that are targeted for trophies, such as African buffalo and reindeer. We will be looking at species with a conservation status of “near threatened” or worse according to the IUCN red list, and will publish that list of species for Members’ consideration before we table the instrument to list them. We will be able to act swiftly to list any more species in future if those species’ conservation status worsens, or if we see evidence of trophy hunting becoming a problem in such cases.

Clause 3 sets out how a ban on imports to Great Britain will work, and how it will deal with movements from Northern Ireland. As I know the right hon. Member for East Antrim understands, by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol, current CITES controls on hunting trophies contained within EU legislation will remain in force, effectively maintaining the status quo. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned a concern about trophy hunters avoiding the ban by moving banned trophies through Northern Ireland, but there is no back door through which trophies can enter Great Britain.

Clause 4 deals with the extent and commencement of the Bill, and sets out its short title.

[Matt Rodda]

I have a further question in relation to Northern Ireland. Could the Minister explain to the Committee what discussions, if any, she has had with the Government of the Irish Republic about this matter? Clearly, there is a lot of cross-border trade that, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central mentioned, could inadvertently find its way into Great Britain.

[Trudy Harrison]

As the hon. Member will realise, I am a relatively new Minister in this particular post; it is officials who have dealt with the devolved Administrations, consulting on how we can best ensure that the Bill meets both our legal aims and, importantly, our policy aims. This is a reserved matter, and I thank officials in the devolved Administrations—in Wales and Scotland in particular—for their engagement with DEFRA.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his support. Let us be clear that the WWF in the UK, Europe and the United States is very much against trophy hunting and the importation of body parts by trophy hunters. Some organisations in some parts of southern Africa masquerade as conversation charities, but even a cursory look shows that it is often the gun lobby, particularly the American gun lobby, that funds them. We must have no naivety about the forces behind those who seek to maintain trophy hunting.

No fewer than 44,000 organisations, experts and individuals, including representatives of African communities, took part in the Government’s public consultation on these proposals; it was one of the most comprehensive such consultations ever conducted. Of those, 86% agreed that measures to end imports of trophies should be introduced.

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), in Africa, for example, trophy hunting is an alien and unpopular concept that is not indigenous; it was introduced by European settlers. It now damages the reputation and the natural heritage of proud southern African nations. A 2019 study of attitudes towards trophy hunting among local communities in Africa found that the dominant attitude was of resentment towards what was viewed as the neo-colonial character of trophy hunting, in that it privileges the access of western elites to Africa’s wild resources. Most recently, in August this year, an Ipsos poll found that only 16% of people in South Africa supported trophy hunting, and that 74% wanted the Government to focus on nature tourism and photo safaris instead.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I wholeheartedly support his Bill. I have had a number of pieces of correspondence from constituents supporting this work, and I am grateful to him for taking it forward. Does he agree that what he says about southern Africa is particularly important given the state visit this week of the President of South Africa, and the very strong and supportive links between our two countries?

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his support. Yes, it was good to see the President of South Africa on a state visit to the United Kingdom earlier this week. Clearly, the majority of public opinion in his country wants southern Africa to celebrate, protect and grow its natural heritage, and benefit from photo safari tourism, which provides so much more economic opportunity for the people of southern Africa. Studies show that photo safaris generate many more jobs for African people in rural communities, and generate significantly greater revenues for conservation.

To repeat, the Bill is not about what happens in Africa. The Bill is about UK import policy. It is about what we, as a sovereign nation, choose to allow through our borders. It is a Bill about Britain making a concrete contribution to tackling the global conservation crisis. A British ban on imports of hunting trophies would help to save thousands of animals that are threatened with extinction. It would make a strong statement to the international community that we must act decisively to conserve our living planet.

To conclude, in the words of Ian Khama, the former President of Botswana who, during his term of office, ended trophy hunting in his country,

“With the decline of wildlife worldwide, and many species approaching extinction, all caused by man, how can there be justification in trophy hunting?”.

Now, almost a quarter of a century into the 21st century, I could not agree more. Today, we can and must act.

Badger Culling

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Tracey Crouch]

I agree. I appreciate that it is very easy for us as Back Benchers, without the controls of the Treasury, to always call for extra funding, but I do think there is real merit in ensuring that we fund these things exceptionally well.

On vaccination specifically, in their response to the Godfray review the Government announced a move to vaccinate both cattle and badgers. With a large-scale badger vaccination trial currently taking place in East Sussex—the hon. Lady’s area, I believe—the Vaccinating East Sussex Badgers, or VESBA, project will vaccinate badgers across 250 sq km of east Sussex every year for four years, with an annual vaccination target of 675 badgers. Although East Sussex is in the edge area, the Cuckmere valley in the county has long been a TB hotspot; I understand that the first vaccination waves have primarily been focused there. I hope that such a Government-backed study can independently determine whether the vaccination of the wildlife reservoir will in turn reduce TB numbers in cattle. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated whether the Department has already seen evidence of movement in the early stages of the trial.

From an animal welfare perspective, I would much rather see badgers vaccinated than shot. However, the process of identifying badger setts, laying bait, setting traps and then vaccinating the badgers is an exercise that is not only costly and time-consuming but cannot effectively be expanded throughout the country. May I impress on the Minister that if we are going to vaccinate, let us vaccinate the cattle? By contrast to the wildlife, we know how many cows we have and where they are. Will the Minister update us on where we currently are regarding the research studies announced in response to the Godfray review of the candidate cattle vaccine and subsequent improved skin test, with the ambition of introduction within the next five years?

Back in 2019, I spoke in a similar debate in Westminster Hall on the badger cull. That was before more positive announcements from the Government that were welcomed by animal welfare organisations and charities alike. In that debate, I spoke about the success of the Gatcombe strategy used at a farm in south Devon, where the farmer Dick Sibley has worked with the animal welfare group the Save Me Trust to change a farm rife with TB into one with an official TB-free status in just three years. The core element of the strategy is based on identifying and cutting off the roots of infection in the herd through enhanced testing, which is much more sensitive than the notorious skin test. This allows the farm to identify the infected cow and remove it before the disease takes hold of the herd.

Such tests are, of course, more expensive for famers than a traditional skin test, which I believe costs around £5 a cow. Can we look at supporting farmers with the cost of administering the most reliable tests available? That makes much more economic and scientific sense in the long run and would help to identify the hidden reservoir in the English cattle herd. The improved testing techniques used by the farm both on cattle and on their immediate environment pointed to slurry in the farm harbouring harmful levels of TB and contributing to the cycle of transmission within the herd.

In response to these points about testing and improved husbandry in cattle in farms, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), told me that he had met Dick Sibley and that from 2015 the Department had had

“a biosecurity plan that included slurry management”.—[Official Report, 23 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 22WH.]

However, at that point the data was “mixed” in confirming the links between slurry and TB in cattle. My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Department was still in “dialogue with Dick Sibley” at Gatcombe Farm and the Department was “keen” to look at evidence that could show a link between slurry and cattle. Will the Minister confirm whether such work is still being carried out by the Department and whether guidelines for farms will be updated to try to minimise TB outbreaks through measures on farms?

As I have made clear, I welcome the move to gradually withdraw from culling, although I remain concerned that high-intensity culls will continue to be allowed in the already approved areas. I am encouraged by data in Wales, which has ended its badger cull and seen similar levels of TB reduction to cull areas in England.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I offer my support for her work in this important area. She is speaking eloquently about this ongoing and serious problem that affects one of our largest land animals, a species that makes such an important contribution to biodiversity in the wider environment and is under enormous pressure. Her point about the culls, in particular, is very well made. I understand from former civil service colleagues who have worked at DEFRA—I was a civil servant myself, albeit not in that Department—that the debate around culling has been very contested for some time, that many scientists have had deep concerns about culling for a long time, and that it is seen as quite cruel to badgers.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. One of the sad things about the badger cull debate is that it has been quite divisive: two groups have been pitted against each other rather than working together. We have moved forward significantly since the start of the badger cull debate, with those who care passionately about wildlife respecting the challenges of bovine TB in herds and, equally, farmers being keen to move forward and not be seen as people who do not care about wildlife, which they do enormously.

We have come together much better and converged on a much more congenial atmosphere and conversation, but the badger cull still continues. The whole point of today’s debate, I hope, is to stress the importance of bringing the cull to an end and starting work on a whole variety of different measures. I know that the Minister will refer to the proverbial toolbox; it is clear that there is a whole host of ways of dealing with bovine TB. I am sure she will make those points in her speech.

The data from Wales is really encouraging. The devolved Government have announced a new approach and are targeting cattle as the victims and main transmission source of the disease. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the UK Government are in dialogue with the devolved Administration and whether they are monitoring data from that strategy to support the fight against TB in England.

The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill is going through Parliament at the moment. I intervened on the Secretary of State on Second Reading and spoke about how gene editing may improve disease resistance in livestock. He said that there is already work going on to breed natural resistance and select, for instance, dairy cattle with a higher resistance to bovine TB. I hope the Bill will enable scientific advances to be made far faster so that cattle and farmers can be protected without harming our wildlife.

Despite the announcement in May 2021 of the phased end of culling, Natural England issued 11 new supplementary badger culling licences the following month, and announced seven new intensive cull areas in September. I am concerned that, despite DEFRA’s mantra, new areas will continue to be approved. Will the Minister outline how many new supplementary intensive culling areas have been approved this year?

Will the Minister assure me and the many other Members who care passionately about this issue that the Government are serious about phasing out the cull and are investing in a diverse armoury to tackle the disease, including accelerating work to develop an effective cattle vaccine, improving husbandry measures such as herd health plans, restricting cattle movements, and ultimately enabling financial incentives so that farmers can use improved and reliable testing to remove infected cows at source?

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to participate in this important debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She is extremely well supported in her long-running campaigns on these issues by the Badger Trust and the Save Me Trust, which are the sources of much of the information she shared. I agree that we have moved forward. The tone of the debate has become far more measured, and indeed better for tackling the problem.

This is a very personal problem for me. My grandfather died from TB, and I gave up my Longhorn cattle 10 years ago because of the prevalence of TB up our valley. I was keeping cattle for pleasure rather than serious business purposes, and I really did not want to infect next door’s precious Jersey herd. For me, TB has very personal connotations, and I know well that it is a very dangerous disease in all species—human, bovine or badger.

Bovine TB definitely represents a threat to the cattle industry. Over the past 12 months, we have compulsorily slaughtered 26,000 cattle in England to control the disease. We all agree that badgers are implicated in the spread and persistence of bovine TB. We know, and we have seen the evidence in the Downs study—although not all agree—that the badger cull has led to a significant reduction in BTB in the areas in which it has been carried out. We also know that many people hate the idea of culling badgers, and of course nobody wants to see a protected species culled more than necessary.

As my hon. Friend said, there is no single answer to the problem of bovine TB. It is a very costly problem for the taxpayer: we spend about £100 million a year on testing, compensation and culling cattle. We are open-minded in DEFRA about how we should continue to tackle the problem, and of course we work closely with the devolved Administrations and scientists further afield to look at what solutions are available to us. It is important that we retain that open-minded view as we look to the new stages of this dreadful disease.

[Matt Rodda]

I am pleased to hear that the Minister and DEFRA are working with the Welsh Labour Government and that there can be a process of learning from how they have moved on from culling. I appreciate the economic pressures that farmers are under at this very difficult time. I hope there can be consensus so that we can move forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for working on that basis.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is important that we continue to work with our partners in the devolved Administrations wherever we can. There has been a certain amount of angst up the border between England and Wales as a result of the difference in policy—it is a very high-incidence neighbourhood—so it is very important that we work together wherever possible.

The tools available to us include culling where necessary—I have no doubt that it will be necessary during outbreaks; I make no secret of the fact that, where there is an outbreak, culling may be the only answer for both badgers and cattle—and vaccinating cattle, which for me is the goal. Many of us received the vaccination in school; it is not that different in humans. What we need to do is develop a test that does not give a false positive reading if a cow has received a vaccine. The test is currently being trialled and worked on. We started field trials in June last year and hope to have them completed this winter. The results are not yet published. We are still hopeful, though, and we are very much working towards 2025 as the date for having a real vaccine for cattle that can be rolled out widely. For me, that will be the game changer.

Vaccinating badgers is also a solution. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that the Government need to put some welly into this, if I may put it like that. I say politely that the Animal and Plant Health Agency now has 28 full-time vaccinators working hard to vaccinate badgers in the vaccination window, although not all badgers need to be vaccinated. We need to be clever about this.

As hon. Members can imagine, vaccinating badgers is a very difficult process. Initially at least, it has to be done annually, to make sure that the vaccination is effective. If there has been a significant cull, the badgers that are left can be vaccinated in a targeted way. We vaccinated about 1,500 badgers last year and expect that figure to be higher this year. We have introduced a simplified licence to cut the administrative burden for those who wish to vaccinate badgers.

Vaccinating badgers is definitely one of the tools in the toolbox, but is not a simple thing to do, nor is it entirely great from an animal welfare perspective, because badgers need to be attracted, trapped, vaccinated and then released, and then trapped again, which is not without its difficulties.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is quite right that we have made heavy work of getting here. We have probably at times shared the view that we would not get here, so I welcome the fact that we have done so. I am not sure why some Government Back Benchers are so upset about the Bill, because it is pretty weak, although the test will be who is on the animal sentience committee once it is up and running, and what decisions they make and are allowed to make, so we reserve judgment on that.

I will speak briefly in support of new clause 1. It was rejected by the Government in Committee, although I am not sure why. It would require the preparation of an animal sentience strategy and annual statements on progress towards that. That would lead to a more proactive approach to sentience from Ministers. One of the amendments I tabled in Committee would have removed the word “adverse.” The new animal sentience committee’s job is to look at the “adverse effects” of policy. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said that it would be able to look at kids learning in school about how to be nice to pets, but that is not the purpose of this committee. Its purpose is to look at negative things, but I think it would help if it could also look at the positive side of things.

Having an animal sentience strategy in place would force the Government to set out how they would respond to relevant reports, assessments and research, and it would be more proactive. Improving animal welfare should not just be about protecting where we are; it ought to be a constant, iterative process, because where we are simply is not good enough, whether because the laws are not strong enough or because enforcement does not happen.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree with me that although the Bill is a step forward, it is unusual to have a committee of this type without its having a strategy? As Government Members have pointed out, the committee needs to be making sensible decisions and recommendations. How can it do that without a strategy? I am sure the public would expect it to have a strategy, because the public expect us to be focused on animal welfare.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, particularly as we have a Government who cannot be trusted to keep their promises, as we have seen recently on imports of hunting trophies, fur and foie gas, for example. We need a mechanism that keeps the Government on track and creates that forward momentum, and new clause 1 would provide that.

It is clear from the Government rowing back on their promises to legislate on those imports that the Government are scared of some of their more unreconstructed Back Benchers—actually, some of the current Cabinet are pretty unreconstructed too, if the press are to be believed. On Second Reading it was noticeable how many Conservative Back Benchers stood up to criticise the Bill. The lack of enthusiasm for it—even the fear of it—was palpable, and we have read about efforts behind the scenes to neuter it, and I think that is what amendment 7 is about.

The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) wrote a rather amusing article for ConservativeHome recently, saying that he had rumbled my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and me and sussed us out—I paraphrase. After close scrutiny of our comments in Committee, he had worked out that we had a hidden agenda: we were against fox hunting. That was remarkably clever of him; it was like when Scooby Doo suddenly unmasks the villains at the end. If there is anyone with a hidden agenda, it is he and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, and I think he ought to be clear as to what amendments 6 and 7 are about.

Why would we want to exclude anyone with past or present commitment to animal welfare issues from serving on the animal sentience committee? Amendment 7 says that anyone who is an

“employee, former employee, or is a consultant or former consultant to, a charity”—

that could be the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which are pretty benign organisations—

“or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, or is or has been in receipt of any payments or funding from such a charity or organisation, whether directly or indirectly”

should not be allowed to serve on the animal sentience committee. I do not understand why we would want to exclude people who have shown commitment, interest, knowledge or expertise in animal welfare from the animal sentience committee, unless the aim was to try to ensure that it was as weak on welfare and soft on sentience as possible.

Environment Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

As a keen wild swimmer, I want bathing water quality in our rivers to improve massively, not just for swimmers but for the natural world, so I support the hon. Lady in her efforts.

Water quality in our rivers in England is not good enough. In the past year alone, raw sewage was discharged into UK rivers and seas more than 400,000 times. The Government’s response was to whip their MPs to vote against an amendment that would have stopped raw human sewage pouring into our precious rivers and seas. I am afraid that the message that that vote sent was a poor one.

Then came the rightful public outcry, which shamed the Government into a U-turn after days of digging in their heels. They have now adopted much of the amendment that they voted against, which is welcome, but they have not adopted it all. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their time speaking to the Opposition about the issue, and I am grateful for the Minister’s words today putting our concerns on record, but I have to say that publishing an amendment at 5 pm last Friday did not really build trust, either among Members on both sides of the House who wanted to see the detail or among the stakeholders who were looking forward to scrutinising carefully what the Minister had to say.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Trust is paramount for the communities up and down the great rivers of this country, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. Reading is downstream from Abingdon; London is further downstream. We are all deeply concerned about the state of our rivers. Although the Government have given some concessions and have listened to some extent, the way they have behaved still leaves a lot to be desired. The public remain deeply concerned about the issue.

[Luke Pollard]

I believe that the public are seriously concerned about what has happened in the House over the past few weeks. They have been alerted and awakened to the volume of raw sewage discharged into their rivers and seas; they want faster and bolder action from Ministers now that they are aware of this absolute outrage in our environment. That is why we need to build trust again.

In her speech and in earlier remarks, the Minister has cited a figure of more than £600 billion, but the maths is disputed, to say the least. It is not sufficient to say, “To deal with this properly will cost £600 billion, but to deal with tinkering around the edges will cost hardly anything on the side,” and pretend that those are fair options to choose between. We need a much bolder approach, with honesty and clarity rather than threats about bills and about how the process works.

We also need to look at how to build trust with the public again, because they are very concerned. I share the Minister’s concern about fake news online and do not wish to see wildly inaccurate claims made, so such a large figure needs to be backed up with clear evidence. I have tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister for the working behind it; I hope she will be able to confirm the answer in due course.

Labour wants a stronger amendment. The Minister’s amendment in lieu of the Duke of Wellington’s amendment is confined to storm overflows rather than addressing the sewerage system as a whole—a really important point. There is no specific duty on Ofwat or the Environment Agency to ensure compliance, but there should be. We need to focus on reducing harm, rather than just on the adverse impacts. The amendment in lieu looks like the Government looking busy without making a real difference, so I want to set out three things that I hope the Minister will confirm today that could make a difference.

Environment Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I want to start by marking the wicked and senseless murder of Sir David Amess. I was not able to speak in the tributes on Monday, but I do want to place on record my sorrow and send my prayers and thoughts to Sir David’s family, to his staff in the House and in Southend, and to his constituents. I also want to extend condolences to the family, staff and constituents of the late James Brokenshire, whose passing was untimely and very sad indeed. Both colleagues will be much missed throughout the House.

On a happier note, I want to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her position as Minister for Air, but, sadly, she seems to have disappeared into thin air! That is a bit of a worry.

Here we are, back in the House and back discussing the Environment Bill, 629 days after it received its First Reading. I am grateful to the Lords for their careful consideration of the Bill, and for succeeding where this House was unable to do so and making it fit for purpose. As we approach COP26 in Glasgow, a Bill fit for purpose has never been more needed. The world is watching, and the world is waiting for leadership from the British Government. The Bill could and should be stronger, it could have passed through the House much sooner, and it had the scope for real cross-party involvement; but alas, thanks to this Secretary of State and this Prime Minister, it was not to be.

Lords amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Hayman, is about tackling toxic air, and it is so, so important. I am grateful to her for taking up the baton of Labour’s focus on cleaning our air and our lungs. Nearly 60% of people in England now live in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits in 2019-20. We cannot go on as we are; we require real leadership, which is why Labour will be supporting Lords amendment 3 and voting to ensure that it remains in the Bill.

This Conservative Government’s approach to air quality has been ruled unlawful multiple times. Following Labour’s best efforts to amend the Bill in this place, the Lords succeeded in writing into it enforceable targets to bring air pollution below the harmful levels set by the World Health Organisation. The time for hot air from the Government Benches is over, and I encourage all colleagues—I am thinking particularly of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—to realise that now is the time to adopt a proper and comprehensive approach to cleaning our air in this Bill. Please come and join us, and let us get this done.

In raising the important topic of air quality, I want to pay warm tribute to Rosamund Kissi-Debrah for all her campaigning work in the wake of the avoidable, tragic and devastating death of her daughter Ella. I read the letter that Rosamund wrote to the Prime Minister today, and I agree with every single word that she said.

[Matt Rodda]

I had the pleasure of meeting Rosamund, and I can only say that my heart goes out to the family and that it is the most awful situation.

My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the importance of air quality and the need for a much tougher approach from the Government, and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will listen. Does my hon. Friend agree that a dramatic improvement in the Government’s approach to water quality is also important? There is a serious problem with sewage being swept into our rivers, notably in my area in Berkshire, which is downstream from a number of effluent works.

[Ruth Jones]

I do agree, and I am sure that that topic will be dealt with by my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), very appropriately when we debate the next group of amendments.

I want to share some of Rosamund’s letter to the Prime Minister, from which I quote:

“Ella was hospitalised 28 times in 28 months and admitted to ICU five times, fighting back from the brink of death. Her condition meant her lungs frequently filled with mucus, which made her feel as if she was constantly suffocating.”

I was disappointed to hear the Minister say today that she is delaying the consultation about air quality until next October, because that means that an additional 36,000 to 40,000 people in the UK could die prematurely every year owing to exposure to air pollution. Among them are between 22 and 24 children and young people who die from asthma every year, eight to 12 of whom live in London. The UK has one of the highest death rates from asthma in Europe, whereas in Finland, a country with better air quality, not a single child dies of asthma in a year.

As Rosamund goes on to say, the Environment Bill is our once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that children born now—including our own children—can grow up breathing safe, healthy air. Those are powerful words from a mother determined to ensure that no other parent experiences the loss of a child and no other child loses its life because the Government refused to act. Labour will not stop in the fight for cleaner air, and if this Tory Government will not act, Labour will. Let me make clear again that we will deliver a stand-alone clean air Act when we win the next general election.

As we have heard, this Bill creates the Office for Environmental Protection, but fails to give it the powers that it needs. A strong, effective and trusted OEP is, in the words of my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, essential to underpin all the other measures contained in the Bill. As the OEP will be scrutinising and holding Ministers to account in respect of their compliance with environmental laws, rules and regulations, it is vital for the OEP to be strong and independent, and to engage properly with all devolved nations in our United Kingdom.

It is also beyond comprehension that since the Bill worked its way through both Houses, Ministers have actually weakened their own proposals for this new office. If that approach continues, the OEP will become a lapdog rather than a watchdog, and this will be simply another missed opportunity for the Secretary of State. It is because of that missed opportunity that Lords amendment 31 in the name of Lord Krebs, Lords amendment 33 in the name of Lord Anderson, and Lords amendment 75 in the name of our former colleague from South Down, my noble Friend Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, are so important. They strengthen the powers, reach and scope of the OEP, and they have our full support.

I thank Lord Teverson for Lords amendment 1, which requires the Government to declare a biodiversity and climate emergency. How can anyone disagree with that? I also thank Baroness Bennett for Lords amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that soil health and quality remains a priority area for environmental improvement; and, of course, I welcome Lords amendment 28 from Baroness Parminter. This amendment removes the exceptions in the Bill for policy making on defence and security, tax, spending and resource allocation from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. If the Bill is going to mean anything and if Ministers are serious about tackling the climate emergency, they will support those amendments today.

Lords amendment 12, in the name of Baroness Brown of Cambridge, is an important component of the fight to make this Bill fit for purpose. It seeks, very simply, to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets that he or she sets. It is obvious why targets are required, and it is obvious why we need to be able to track our progress, monitor our focus and honour our promises. The amendment received cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that it will do so in the House today.

At every stage of this Bill, Labour has proposed fair, balanced and objective amendments that seek to make the Bill fit for purpose and, moreover, actually help us tackle the climate emergency and set out a real place to protect our environment and preserve our planet. I have said to the House before that we do not have time to waste: the climate crisis worsens each day, and real action is necessary. But that requires a strong Bill, not a half-hearted attempt that does not recognise, or match, the seriousness of the challenge in front of us.

Disappointingly for many in the sector and for the future of our planet, nothing in the Bill will stop the UK falling behind the EU on the environment and environmental standards. Over the past year, as well as dealing with the coronavirus pandemic we have seen fires raging across Australia, the US and the Amazon, at the same time as glaciers are melting away in the Arctic and Antarctic. We are seeing increasingly erratic and life-threatening weather patterns in our cities and rural areas alike.

This Bill needs energy and dynamism, and the amendments before the House today make a bad Bill better. I hope that Ministers will simply and finally do the right thing. They should accept these fair and balanced amendments from their lordships’ House, and I urge them to work with Labour to deliver a real plan to protect our environment and preserve our planet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As a regular wild swimmer myself, I recognise that this is a concern not only to people who swim in our nation’s rivers but to those who value their biodiversity. I think that the Minister has underestimated the strength of feeling in this area.

There is a way through this, however. There is a route that could result in progressive improvement in the reduction in the number of raw sewage discharges, that could simultaneously collect the required data and that could protect our environment without big increases to bills, with appropriate investment and a sense of urgency from Ministers. There is a route for that, and I suspect that further compromises will be necessary on this point when the Bill returns to the House of Lords and then comes back to us. I do not think we are yet done with this.

[Matt Rodda]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the key is to focus the big water companies on this issue? They have significant resources; they are large, wealthy businesses. Many people use our rivers, including many residents in Reading who live next to the Thames, the Kennet and the Loddon who are affected by this and very concerned about it. We are downstream of a number of effluent emissions, and people want to see real action from Thames Water.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly good point. People want to see action. This is not something that concerns only politicos; the public want to see proper action as well. We need to put pressure on the Minister to do the right thing, and I am afraid that more pressure will be put on her on a cross-party basis. What she has announced is a step in the right direction, but it does not reach a compromise that is acceptable. We also need to put pressure on the water companies. Water companies such as Southern Water have presided over huge amounts of discharge into our natural environment, but it is not just those companies. Southern has had an enormous focus as a result of its huge fine for deliberately venting sewage into the sea, but we need every single water company to step up. To achieve that, we need pressure from the companies’ shareholders to do so and also pressure from Ofwat.

Ofwat needs to prioritise action to deal with raw sewage outflows into our rivers much more in the business plans. If it is not incentivised or required to do that, it will not do it. That is the power the Secretary of State and the Minister have over water companies under this privatised system. They have the power, but they are choosing not to use it to put in the investment that we need. That is why we need to see further improvement on this amendment, and I suspect that there will be further improvement on it, but I would also encourage the Minister to find a good answer to the question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi):

“When will all English rivers be sewage free?”

That seems a simple question, and our constituents want to know the answer. If she cannot provide the answer, we must recognise that there is a bigger problem here that we need to look at.

Turning to habitats, I am proud that the British people have an ambition to protect the environment. All of us are here reflecting the views of our constituents who want to see more action to protect the environment. Not everyone knows how much carbon is emitted from their community on a daily basis, but we all recognise how many trees there are and the volume of the birdsong chorus in our communities. Nature matters. Dr Andy Purvis from the Natural History Museum has said that the UK has

“led the world in degrading the natural environment.”

We only have half our biodiversity left as a nation; we have lost an awful lot of species and habitats and we cannot risk losing any more.

The habitats regulations, which are the first line of defence in providing strict protections for the UK’s finest wildlife sites and endangered species, are so important, yet clauses 113 and 114 essentially give the Secretary of State the freedom to do what he likes with those regulations. He is required only to “have regard” to the need to enhance biodiversity when making changes, but “having regard” is not sufficient when we are in a climate and ecological emergency. That is why we are seeking to protect Lords amendment 65, which would ensure that powers to amend these regulations did not weaken their important environmental protections and could be used only for environmental improvement. I struggle to understand why anyone would not agree with the case that the Lords have made on that.

The public want to see us protect our forests and woodlands, and they want to see us plant more trees. The Climate Change Committee, the independent body set up to advise the Government, has been clear that we need to raise our current 13% forest cover to 17% by 2050 if we are to have any chance of meeting our climate goals, but we know that the Government’s slow, pedestrian and managerial approach to tree planting means the target will not be met until 2091. Their action does not match their soundbites, as it must if we are to hit our climate goals.

Planting more trees in England is strongly supported by the public, by business, by local councils and, looking at their press releases, by Ministers as well, so why are Ministers failing to plant sufficient trees? It is not because they do not enjoy enough support, it is not because the public will not support further measures and it is not because the public will not support further spending on this, so what are the obstacles and inhibitors that stop Ministers from delivering more trees? We need to see further action on tree planting by mobilising more of the power of the state to get this done.

On an issue where there is cross-party and full public support, we need Ministers to do better than they are at the moment. England is being left behind in the UK’s family of nations when it comes to tree planting, and we are being left behind on the global stage, too. If Ethiopia can plant 5 billion trees a year, including planting 350 million trees in a single day on 29 July 2019, why can we not have similar ambitions and scale of delivery?

Although we should be planting more trees, we must also be careful of losing trees, which is why Labour supports Lords amendments 94, 95 and 66. We know that deforestation, legal and illegal, is increasing alarmingly across the planet, but we also know that, far too often, we measure the impacts only within our own nation. Our global consumption and global supply chains must be taken into account if we are to prevent deforestation. Allowing illegal deforestation to become legal deforestation is a “get out of jail free” card that does nothing to get our planet out of trouble, so we need to see further advances. I am glad the Minister is making progress on certain commodities that come from stressed areas, but I encourage her to go further and do more.

Briefly, could the Minister ask the Financial Conduct Authority to issue new guidelines to financial institutions on deforestation risk? No British bank should be bankrolling deforestation internationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

Lords amendment 43 addresses a real and important issue. Although I listened carefully to what the Minister said to the House, it simply did not go far enough. We know that the decline in the population of pollinators has been serious. For example, it is estimated that we lose some £500 million-worth of Gala apples every year. If we add up the other fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators, the economic cost is enormous. But this is more important than simply the economics of the agricultural industry, although that is important.

The decline in pollinators is also about habitat loss, as the Minister said, but the Government are not yet doing enough to restore those habitats. We also know that the impact of pesticides is real. The Minister said that the Government follow the science, but we do not have the science on this. We do not know about the impact, for example, of the joint use of products such as fungicides and pyrethroids. We know a little bit about the impact of neonicotinoids on the honey bee, but we do not know about the impact of neonicotinoids on other pollinators. We simply cannot follow the science if that science does not exist.

When we were leaving the European Union, one of the Government’s commitments was that we would maintain the ban on neonicotinoids because of the known impact. They do not simply kill honey bees directly; they also prevent the reproduction of honey bees and possibly of other pollinators, and make the nervous system of the honey bee no longer functional so that solitary bees, for example, which are also important pollinators, may simply not return home to feed their brood. We do not really know the impact of neonicotinoids, except that it is bad.

The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) made an important point earlier, when he said that Ministers come and Ministers go. I say to the Minister that an important lesson in life is this: never trust Ministers to make decisions unless we have transparency. We can respect individual Ministers, but we need a consistency of approach that outlasts individual Ministers. On the question of the protection of pollinators, it is important that we have transparency and the capacity genuinely to follow expert science—to build that scientific base, but with expert science.

Earlier this year, we saw that the Secretary of State was prepared to use the exemptions from the neonicotinoid ban to allow the use of neonicotinoids with respect to the sugar beet crop, because there was enormous pressure from the sugar industry and, to a degree, from some sugar beet farmers. In fact, the Government did not follow the science then, because the experts advised the Government that that was the wrong decision, but Government Ministers still made that decision. They were wrong; the experts were right. The funny thing is that a good number of farmers who have been made aware of that feel that they were hoodwinked by the Government. Some have said that they would not use neonicotinoids next year on the basis of what happened this year. That is important, because the reason we need Lords amendment 43 is that it allows us to move on to the basis of genuinely following the science, genuinely protecting the farming industry where that is appropriate, and absolutely guaranteeing that we protect pollinators—not just honeybees but across the piece—from the impact of pesticides and the damage they can do.

I implore Members to think very seriously about this. It should not be a partisan, party issue; it goes way beyond that. If you believe in the value of pollinators, and quite frankly our agricultural system would be destroyed without them, then please—

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech about the importance of pollinators—not just honeybees, although they are hugely important—and the economic and environmental benefits of these very valuable insects. Does he agree that it would have been better for the former Minister to have listened to a broader range of advice about neonicotinoids? Does he also agree that it would have been wiser for the Government to continue to follow the regulation from the European Union and not to try to diverge from that in this important area, and indeed others?

[Tony Lloyd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister does listen. Although the Government recognised that there was no need to use the exemption this year because of the weather conditions, that may not apply next year or the year after, so we need to follow the experts in a way that they most certainly were not followed by the Government.

Amendment 43 is not partisan; it is in the interests of everybody. I hope the whole House will seriously think about supporting its retention.

Environment Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but we already have our clean air strategy, as I said, and our local authority fund, which we have recently increased by millions. I urge him to have a look at that fund and I urge his authority to apply. Many authorities are already taking their own measures because they know, for example, where the hotspots are. He makes a very sound point and the exposure target will really help those hotspots, which is why it is so important.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Further to the point about air pollution and working with the public, is the Minister also aware of the potentially significant business opportunities for vehicle and, indeed, cycle manufacturers in shifting to a low-pollution approach? As the hon. Gentleman said, local authorities are natural partners, but there are also partners in the private sector that could benefit hugely if the Government were able to make a clearer statement and agree at an earlier point with the WHO’s target.

[Rebecca Pow]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen runner and gets out and about, probably on his bicycle as well, and he makes a very good point. This is why our net zero strategy, our road to decarbonisation for transport and the £2 billion that we have invested in cycling and walkways are so important. All those funds are being incorporated when local authorities apply for their budgets to deal with their hotspots. The clean air zone areas, which we are bringing in across the country, take advantage of exactly the opportunities that he raises.