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.

Environment Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this landmark Bill, which aims to ensure that the environment is at the heart of Government policy. I am pleased that it intends to better conserve our environment, tackle biodiversity loss and regenerate parts of our great countryside.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for his tireless efforts on environmental issues, including his work on food labelling and environmental sustainability. I was very proud, in the previous Parliament, to co-sponsor his Bill on that matter, much of the contents of which are set to come back to this House later today. This, along with new clause 4, demonstrates that so much more can be done to strengthen our commitments to the environment by protecting vulnerable species. I welcome the Minister’s statements today and her commitment to review ways that we can reverse the decline in hedgehog numbers.

I think we can also help the population to make informed choices. Recently, I visited Rodbaston College in my Stafford constituency. I was delighted to tour the animal zone, where a number of my young constituents are learning to work with a variety of animals, learning how to protect our native species such as the otter and learning to train for careers in conservation. New clause 4, which aims to insert hedgehogs into the Bill as a protected species, is an important reminder of how interconnected nature is, and the important need to retain and to protect species such as the hedgehog.

It may surprise some people to know that a key factor in the reduction of the number of hedgehogs is in fact keeping gardens too tidy and the lack of wildlife corridors in fenced-in gardens. Last week, I was pleased to re-form the all-party parliamentary group for fruit, vegetables and horticulture, which I co-chair, and I led a conversation with Alan Titchmarsh, in which we discussed how gardeners can work with nature to improve habitats for other wildlife, including hedgehogs. New clause 21 aims to protect habitats better. I think we can all do our bit by providing wildlife corridors and creating hedgehog homes, as I have in my own garden. No Mow May is an initiative that is very popular with my constituents: people do absolutely nothing to their lawn in May, which can significantly improve the ecosystem of their garden. The wonderful thing about nature is that it wants to recover. We just need to give it the opportunity to do so.

I believe that the measures in this Bill lay the groundwork to significantly improve our environment. The Bill, particularly new clause 21, clearly demonstrates our Government’s commitment to protecting the unique and diverse habitats that we have in Britain. I was pleased recently to visit the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust’s Wolseley Centre to see at first hand its project to replicate a wide variety of habitats in Staffordshire, including woodlands, ponds, and wet and hay meadows. These habitats are providing homes for a range of flora and fauna. The measures in the Bill ensure that we can protect these for generations to come.

One of the reasons these steps are so effective and increase biodiversity is that we are helping other species in the ecosystem to thrive, which in turn leads to a richer and more resilient environment. That is why I believe it is so vital that we reverse the biodiversity loss we have already suffered in the UK, and that is why I welcome the focus in the Bill. I welcome the Bill along with the new clause I have discussed due to their aim to conserve our environment and increase biodiversity. We need to protect and improve our precious environment for generations to come.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this important debate today. I would like to cut to the chase, because time is short. I think it is worth reiterating the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard): we do face a climate emergency and an ecological emergency. Put simply, these are existential threats to humanity on this planet. We must, as he rightly said, not only slow down the car that is speeding towards the cliff, but stop it, turn it around and drive the other way.

The question we need to discuss today is whether this Bill is enough to stop that car. In my opinion, it simply is not. It does make some small steps forward—I grant the Government that, and I am very keen to work with colleagues across the House on this matter—but I think we have to be honest with ourselves: it does not take the significant series of steps that we all support, I would hope, and that we as a country and the wider world urgently need.

I will highlight three key issues before mentioning a few local points. On tree planting, I am not sure the Government fully understand the difficulty of rolling out a major programme of tree planting, given the wide range of landowners they need to work with, the importance of supporting local authorities and the practical difficulties, such as the number of man and woman hours that it takes to plant a large number of trees. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), rightly spoke about the importance of biodiversity and supporting trees—which are not only good in themselves in capturing carbon, but have a beneficial effect on the landscape, for example, stopping erosion—and about promoting native trees rather than those that do not support such a wide range of animals and plants. The interesting comparison here is a sycamore versus an oak tree. An oak tree might support 1,000 plants and animals, but a sycamore, which is not native, does not support anything like that—it supports only a few species.

There are also important weaknesses in terms of air quality. This is a major issue in my Reading East constituency, where a huge amount of traffic flows through the town, a legacy problem with the way roads are laid out in our area, and many families have severe concerns about the health of children, older people and the population as a whole.

On the oceans—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport also mentioned this issue—we face a huge challenge around the world, with the growth of plastics in the oceans. There are many other problems as well.

I would like to work on a cross-party basis with colleagues, but we need to understand the urgency of the matters that should be addressed by the Bill. Our residents in our local communities are telling us that. I am sure I am not the only person here present today who has a groaning postbag, with many different concerns raised by local people. There are far too many to mention in full, but I want to just cover a couple of them.

A good example is the scale of concern about sewage flowing into rivers. Reading sits on the River Thames and the River Kennet. We have a large population, with people who want to wild swim in the Thames and other water users. Many people enjoy boating and fishing. We need to deal with this problem urgently and it relates to the other issues we have talked about today.

In my area, we are also very concerned about the planning liberalisation proposed by the Government, which is completely mistaken. As many Conservative Members who represent similar seats in southern England will know, it could dramatically change the local landscape, lead to a huge amount of infilling between existing towns and cities, degrade the quality of life in existing suburbs by putting large blocks of flats between rows of existing houses, and lead to building on the green lungs of towns and cities. So I urge the Government— I realise this does not relate directly to this Bill—to address this matter, completely scrap and reconsider their approach to planning, and revert to the traditional tried and tested approach which has stood us in good stead since world war two.

Very briefly—I realise I am in danger of running over time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will indicate my support for new clause 25, on trees; amendment 46, on the rainforest, from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, which I whole- heartedly support; amendment 22, on habitat protection; new clause 12, on banning fracking—a very important measure and there are local concerns about that in our area—and new clause 24, on banning heather burning.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I will speak to amendment 45. Clause 95 is an important step forward because it changes the duty on public authorities: the duty is not just to conserve biodiversity, but to enhance it. That is a big change and one of the big measures in the Bill. Amendment 45 would add to that by requiring public authorities to consider what action they can take to contribute to the achievement of targets under the UN convention on biological diversity. This is a big year with COP26 coming up, but we also have, at Kunming in October—about the time the Bill may well become law—the renewal of the convention and the plan for the next 10 years. I invite the Minister to consider how we can leverage the nature target, for example, which has just been announced, to make such commitments international so that we are changing not just Britain, but the world.

The last CBD that set out a 10-year plan was in 2010; the Aichi targets. It is true that in our country we have done a lot of the things that were proposed, but internationally only one target out of 20 has been achieved: number 11, on protecting 17% of land and water. There is an opportunity, later this year, to go much further. The Government have already made commitments on the sort of measures we should be trying to negotiate, such as protecting 30%, not 17%, of land and seas, and protecting species. I think there is an opportunity to put this in the Bill, although I am just probing the Minister on that. Really, I want to know what the Government’s plans are to take the initiatives in this landmark Bill and make them international. I know the Minister probably has a lot to say when she winds up the debate, but it would be welcome if she touched on the global aspects.

Agriculture Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

No, I am going to get on for the moment —and I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to do so.

Lords amendment 16B is a watered-down version of those protections, not the gold standard that people were hoping for, but it is what we have. Surely, it is something that Ministers can accept, given their repeated insistence that food standards will be respected in trade deals. Similarly, Lords amendment 18B would be a tiny imposition on ministerial life but, likewise, a little reassurance that is worth having. I recognise, however, that it will fall in the face of the Government’s amendment in lieu.

I am afraid that the Government’s amendments fall far short of offering us any reassurances or any meaningful way forward, and that the future for high-quality food production and consumer confidence in the end product is in danger. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) chuntering from a sedentary position about the National Farmers Union Scotland. Just today in the Scottish Affairs Committee, we heard from the NFUS on its concerns about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—the potential for a dive to the bottom in food standards that comes with it, and its relationship to what happens in trade deals on the back of the Agriculture Bill and the forthcoming Trade Bill—so the NFUS still has its reservations.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Lady, I have had many emails from constituents raising concerns about this. Does she agree that part of those concerns stems from the time it has taken the Government to come back and the fact that they have repeatedly issued confusing messages about this matter? There is deep concern that the way the Government have responded has not really dealt with it.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree. That is basically what I am attempting to get across. I feel very much—the contact I am receiving from constituents across agricultural communities indicates that this is also how they feel—that this is a sop, really. The Government are encouraging Back-Bench MPs to vote for the Bill and ensure that it gets through, but this House will have no meaningful way to stop anything that endangers food standards in future trade deals when they come before us. I suppose it is a step forward that reports have to come before the House, but it is not enough. The future of high-quality food production, potentially animal welfare rights and consumer confidence in the end product are in danger.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Matt Rodda Excerpts

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

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

If I may take a few moments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have just received a text message alerting me to the news that a good friend of mine, a guitarist and former band member, has just died following a two-day battle with coronavirus. I send my love and prayers to his wife and pay tribute to a gentle giant, an awesome guitarist and a true family man. Rest in peace.

More than four years have passed since the referendum vote that set out the future of our nation as a full, sovereign Union. That has dominated the political debate in this Chamber and outside the Westminster bubble. One only has to take a look at the map of the leave vote to understand the impact of the coastal communities in deciding the future of our nation.

The sea and our insularity as an island have always been fundamental traits of our history and our identity as British, English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. Because of our geography, we have always had to find a way to connect with other nations by crossing the seas and the channel, to boost our trade with nearby nations and to attract the best projects and talent from around the world. We had to navigate. We would not be such an outward-looking nation if we were not an island. While my constituency is not directly on the sea, I was born just a few miles away from the beautiful Yorkshire coast, and my granddad Walter Naulls was a fisherman over in Hull. I am sure if Walter were alive today, he would be cheering on and welcoming this Bill and the opportunity to take back control again of our waters.

In Yorkshire, whether in Whitby, Morley and Outwood or the dales, we all know the importance of fisheries to our economy. Our seafood sector is worth £1.4 billion per year and employs 12,000 people. British ships land around 400,000 tonnes of fish in UK waters, while EU states’ vessels annually land almost double that in our waters. Thanks to Brexit, we will have access to and be in full control of our waters on our own terms, able to regulate access by third countries. Our fishing communities will not be left behind and we will grow thanks to this legislation.

This is an extremely ambitious deal, which offers only a glimpse of what we were able to do when leaving the EU. As a strong advocate for animal rights, I would like to commend my hon. Friend the Minister and her predecessors for the strong environmental approach that they have taken to this Bill. Adding references to the national benefit objective, along with the powers to make further provision on aquatic and animal health and the Government’s commitment to high standards, are extremely encouraging changes. The Bill will not only protect our fishermen, their families and the communities that rely on them but protect our marine fauna, creating a strong and legally binding framework that can leave the environment in a better state than we inherited, thanks to the quota levels set for fishing.

The objectives set out by the Bill for the fisheries policy authorities, particularly on sustainability, the ecosystem, the bycatch and the scientific evidence, are a sign that leaving the EU does not mean compromising, but rather enhancing, our environmental and animal welfare standards. Taking back control of our waters means maintaining the health of our seas, and the Bill offers a unique opportunity to be world leaders on sustainability, which is vital for our oceans and for future generations. I was pleased to read this positive feedback from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations:

“The Bill is an important and necessary step towards managing our fisheries in ways that can bring real advantages to our coastal communities.”

The Bill not only enables us to take back control of our waters as a sovereign nation but gives control back to the fishing communities, with a strong focus on devolution. Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh boats will be licensed by Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Ministers. The Bill gives more powers to the devolved Governments, who will be responsible for the positive trickle-down effect on coastal communities. I believe that, outside the EU, the Government are paving the way forward for others to follow. With its focus on communities, no compromises on animal welfare and the protection of our economy and, importantly, our sovereignty, the Bill is a clear indication of what taking back control really means.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this important debate. I would like to offer my condolences to the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) on her loss. I would like to speak in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and the shadow Front Bench, and I want to focus my remarks on the opportunity for supporting coastal communities and the importance of protecting the vulnerable marine environment.

Our coastal communities have been neglected for far too long. Austerity and long-standing regional inequality have hit these communities hard. Last year, residents in coastal areas, shockingly, earned £1,600 less than people inland. The Labour amendment recognises these issues and calls on the Government to support those communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said earlier, landing more fish in UK ports will generate significant new jobs inland. One million pounds of fish landed in UK ports can create up to 76 new jobs, which is a significant gain in many areas. Surely, at this time when the Government are saying that they want to “build back better”, this amendment is worth further consideration. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) will consider this approach and take some time to mull it over. It is important that the Government listen to the needs of all our communities, including those facing real economic challenges, both inland in seats such as mine and in coastal areas.

I would like to turn to the serious economic and environmental issues that have been raised in today’s debate. It is important to consider the sheer scale of some of the boats that we have heard about. These supertrawlers are more than 100 metres in length and they pull huge nets that can stretch out over a mile across the sea. These boats have been found to be fishing in vulnerable protected areas with fragile marine ecosystems containing rare flora and fauna. I want to pay tribute to the work that has been carried out by Greenpeace to uncover the full scale of this issue. These boats have been seen to present a severe risk, and it is now time for us to consider its full impact. In the first six months of 2020, supertrawlers spent more than 5,500 hours fishing in protected areas. This is a significant issue, and I hope that the Minister will consider it fully.

Given this evidence, and given the Conservatives’ own manifesto commitments in this area, it is now time for further consideration of these environmental risks, and I urge Ministers to take some time to rethink their position and to look at the amendments from the Labour Front Bench. As was said earlier, the environmental and economic issues in fishing sit together. There is a long-term interest in preserving our valuable and very vulnerable coastal waters, and it is time for the Government to listen, consider the evidence and think again. I urge Ministers to take a reasonable approach to this issue.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks short. I am getting quite used to having debates on fishing and fisheries policy—we seem to discuss it here every week or every couple of weeks at the moment, and long may that continue. This Bill is in a much better place than it was when it entered the House, and I support all the Government’s amendments.

Agriculture Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I share concerns about the quality of food that could be imported after a post-Brexit trade deal is done, unless there is a legal lock.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s points about the importance of farming and of a long-term vision to support our farmers. I think that tonight’s debate is significant for us and for the farming sector in the future. Does he agree that consumers are very concerned not only about the quality of our food and the risk of things being done by the back door, but about the viability of our farms?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I agree with those concerns. British consumers have spent decades arguing for increased animal welfare in our agriculture production, and putting their faith in those brands, supermarkets and products that have higher levels of animal welfare than others. That concern exists.

I want a trade deal with America, but it is really important that we do not pay for that trade deal with the livelihoods of our farmers. That is why the commission needs to be strengthened, providing extra scrutiny of standards, and we will need an amendment that locks those standards into law. I want the commission, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) hinted at in his intervention, to be put on a permanent statutory basis and to produce a report on every trade deal so that this House can vote on it. Our farmers feed the nation. The least they should expect is that their elected representatives have the opportunity to vote on whether to accept a trade deal that could devastate the economy. The Minister is right that a Bill is not required to set that up, but that means that the only thing required is a choice—and that is a choice that the Government have chosen not to make.

--- Later in debate ---

I have frequently raised in this House and with the Government the importance of maintaining high food standards, and I will continue to back Staffordshire farmers in this House. I also believe that this Bill recognises the important and primary role of farmers as food producers. The coronavirus pandemic has emphasised to residents across the country the very vital role that British farmers play in feeding the nation. Tonight, I will now be backing this Bill unamended, as I do believe that the measures set out will reward our farmers properly for the work that they do.

[Matt Rodda]

I wish to declare an interest: I have several relatives who are farmers.

I rise to speak in favour of the Lords amendments. I realise that time is pressing, so I will address the needs and concerns of consumers rather than those of farmers, although I acknowledge the importance of the Bill to the farming community. I would like to mention some of the very serious concerns that have been raised by my constituents in both Reading and Woodley and to call on the Government to listen to those concerns, even at this very late stage.

The central point that has been raised with me is that the Bill as it stands will open a backdoor to food that is produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards. I wish to address both of these related issues in turn. On environmental standards, it is very important to remember that agriculture is responsible for a significant proportion of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and that there are also a series of other issues associated with the industry however hard farmers both here and around the world are trying to address them. The same also applies to animal welfare, which has been led by British farming. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said earlier, there are opportunities for us in this country to influence animal welfare standards around the world by asserting our own rights now as an independent trading country.

These amendments would also allow for closer scrutiny of trade deals. Another point that has been made quite eloquently to me by residents in my area is that we should not shy away from having the same approach that legislatures in other parts of the world have to trade deals. As I said earlier, consumers value the hard work and dedication of UK farmers, and they want to see high standards upheld. However, it is important to understand what UK consumers are able to effect and where the Government need to intervene. Consumers do care deeply about British farmers and about maintaining high standards, and they will raise issues with us as elected representatives. However, consumers are struggling to follow a range of complicated pieces of information about food standards already, and they do rely on the Government to intervene in the market and to try to make things clear for them. They rightly believe that the Government should regulate and that Parliament should hold the Executive to account as part of its constitutional role.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maintaining high standards is important to our country. Serious concerns have been raised by consumers, and there is an obvious need to maintain proper regulation. Given all that and the needs of the farming community, I hope the Government will now, even at this very late stage, listen to the concerns that have been raised and think again.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this vital debate, much of which has understandably focused on Lords amendment 16. I am sorry to disappoint the House, but being as unoriginal as I am I, too, will be restricting my remarks to that amendment.

I have the pleasure of representing a constituency in Aberdeenshire, which is, as I am sure the House will agree, home of the best beef, lamb, berries and cereals produced anywhere in the United Kingdom. Of course these Lords amendments have given me pause for thought, just as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) did. I have listened to representations about the Bill—by email, phone, over social media, and in person yesterday at the door of the church—from farmers and food producers in my constituency. I want to put Scottish and specifically north- east farmers first—first in the queue to benefit from the trade deals that we are negotiating right now. In the next 30 years, the supply of food needs to rise by about 50% to meet the needs of a wealthier, growing global population. I do not want anything that would stand in the way of our high-quality, world-leading Scottish products reaching the shelves of consumers around the world.

In attempting to enshrine in law, as this well-meaning amendment would, that food imported to the UK

“be equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations”,

we would put at risk our ability to sell our products overseas and put in serious jeopardy our ability to carry on importing many of the foodstuffs we do at the moment. We already import a large quantity of goods from developing countries. This includes products sold directly to consumers, such as bananas from the Dominican Republic, and goods processed into final products, such as tea from Kenya, coffee from Vietnam and cocoa beans from Ghana. We do all this under existing European Union rules, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) pointed out, we should not even get started on Danish bacon.

None of the transition EU FTAs has exported domestic welfare production standards. This amendment would mean that the existing mandate for our European Union trade deal—a deal we all, goodness me, want to see succeed—would have to be altered. No current imports to the UK are required to meet our domestic production standards. It is precisely our high standards and high quality of produce that make our produce so attractive to the outside world. Because of that and because we believe in high welfare standards, the Government have given their commitment that in negotiating these trade deals, we will not allow our domestic welfare production standards to be in any way diminished. We will protect, defend and enhance our food safety, environmental and animal welfare standards, and we will actively seek to export these world-leading standards and our expertise to new partners around the world.

This country is a world leader on animal welfare and food production standards. We are champions, or at least should be champions, of free trade. These two principles are the foundation of what I believe global Britain seeks to be. These are the pillars of who we are. Therefore, for all these reasons, and because I support Scottish farmers and want to see our produce sold and enjoyed across the world, I cannot support the Lords amendments before us.

Flooding

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who spoke so eloquently about some of the issues that we all face. My heart goes out to the communities across the country who have been affected by the nightmare of flooding. I am sure the whole House agrees with that sentiment and I support my colleagues in their endeavours in this regard.

I am conscious of time, so I will address just three issues. The first is the scale of the challenge that we all face; I am therefore speaking in favour of the motion. The second is the need for better flood protection in my constituency, which includes Reading itself, Caversham and Woodley, and the third, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, is the need for leadership.

I think it is worth considering both the vast scale of the storms that we face this winter and the broader long-term trend towards warmer, wetter winters. The fact that that is coupled with drier summers does not reduce the flood risk in the winter; indeed, it increases it, and we need to consider that very seriously. Following such a major series of incidents as we have faced during this autumn and winter, the normal response in the House, and from any sensible Government, would be to request an independent inquiry. I believe that an inquiry is important, and I urge the Government to reconsider and withdraw their amendment.

Let me now move swiftly on to the issues in my own area. Reading sits on the River Thames. It is also the point at which the Kennet, which is a major tributary of the Thames, joins the river. It was striking to go down and observe the scale of the flow, and to see a mighty river like the Thames in flood. It is truly terrifying to see the force of the water coming past. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) spoke well when expressing concerns about his area. In our part of the Thames valley, we are lucky to be in a river catchment that sits on soft rock which absorbs water, unlike colleagues in other parts of the country, including the north of England and Wales, where, so tragically, water floods down very rapidly. We are also lucky to benefit from the “sponge” effect of the chalk in the Cotswolds and the Chilterns. In the long run, however, we face serious prospects of increased flood risk.

In 1947, there were substantial floods in Reading and several hundred houses were affected; these are older properties, built in Victorian times on an existing floodplain on either side of the river. Indeed, some parts of the suburb of Caversham are actually below river level. If the Thames were to flood catastrophically in our area, we would see water spread up to half a mile from the river. I can tell those who have ever visited Reading on a train that, in such an event, they would be travelling on tracks that were lapped by a mighty flood from the Thames. Clearly, there needs to be serious and substantial action to protect the town and the surrounding area from this type of flood and action on the tributaries, as I mentioned earlier. I would like Ministers and officials to put more effort into exploring the possibility of changing land use upstream, given that we have such a large catchment.

Environment Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Since before the EU referendum in 2016, my constituents have been raising concerns that Brexit would mean a watering down of the most important protections we have derived as a consequence of our membership of the EU. Again and again those fears were dismissed. We were told there was nothing to fear, accused of scare- mongering, and told to be quiet. Yet at the first test before them, the Government have failed. They have failed to reassure my constituents at all—failed to make a commitment to keep pace with EU standards and to avoid slipping back. The Government could easily have put a commitment to non-regression into this Bill. There is no reason not to do so. This is not about whether, in any hypothetical scenario, the Government cannot go further and faster than the EU; it is about being certain that we will not slip backwards. This is a fundamental breach of trust and of the commitments that were made both during the referendum campaign and at every stage subsequently by those who argued to leave.

Air pollution is one of the issues of greatest concern to my constituents. We have in Dulwich and West Norwood areas of extremely poor air quality. My constituents have watched with dismay as the Tories have been taken to court three times over illegal levels of air pollution and, instead of reacting with the concern and urgency that such a legal defeat would demand, have chosen to spend public funds unsuccessfully appealing against the court decisions—funds that could have been spent on developing the comprehensive air quality strategy that this country so badly needs. That strategy is still missing from this Bill. Air pollution is a public health emergency. Toxic air affects every organ of the body and contributes to as many as 40,000 premature deaths a year. In this context, it is inexcusable that the Government will not commit in this Bill to meet legally binding WHO targets for particulate matter by 2030.

On plastic pollution, again this Bill contains a woeful lack of ambition and detail.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend speaks eloquently about the very serious challenge that this country faces on air quality. Does she agree that this is a matter not just for London boroughs but for almost every urban area and some rural communities, and that it is one of the most significant threats to public health that is emerging in the 21st century?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a fundamental flaw of the approach that this Government have taken over the past five years that they have again and again pushed responsibility for air quality down to local authorities, forgetting that the circumstances are different in many areas of the country and that it is not within the gift of local authorities to address many sources of air pollution.

The role of plastic pollution in the ecological crisis is profound and devastating. So much single-use plastic is completely unnecessary. The Government could take action to begin the elimination of it now, yet this Bill introduces no bans. I want to draw attention particularly to the role of single-use sachets common across the catering and cosmetics industries. Globally, 855 billion sachets are thrown away every year—enough to wrap the entire surface of the globe in plastic. Replacement materials are available for most sachet packaging that render the use of plastics in sachets completely unnecessary. So I ask the Government to amend the Bill to include provisions under the banner, “Sack the Sachet”, to eliminate this harmful and unnecessary form of plastic pollution.

Finally, I want to address the related issues of biodiversity gain and nature recovery. In relation to biodiversity gain, there are key weaknesses and omissions in this Bill. Biodiversity gains should be protected in perpetuity. National infrastructure should not be exempt from it, and the provisions should cover the private as well as the public sector. I ask the Minister to look again at the proposals for biodiversity gain to ensure that they are comprehensive and genuinely deliver the net improvement that we need to see.

As parliamentary species champion for the common pipistrelle bat, I have similar concerns about the proposals in the Bill for nature recovery strategies. Nature recovery strategies have the capacity to play an important role in restoring habitats and enabling species recovery, but they will do that only if they are deliverable as well as descriptive. That means the Government resourcing local councils to prepare and implement nature recovery strategies. Will the Minister confirm that new burdens funding will be allocated to local authorities, to enable nature recovery strategies to be meaningful for the long term?

The Bill provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the Government are serious about the climate emergency and ecological crisis. As currently drafted, it does not do so, and there are critical weaknesses that, if left unaddressed, will prove to be fundamental flaws. I ask the Government to commit today to ensuring that the Bill cannot result in our regressing from EU standards; to strengthening many of the provisions; and to giving teeth to enforcement. The emergency we face demands nothing less.