Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this Bill. The legislation we pass in this place is only as effective as the enforcement that follows from it. A 2014 Dogs Trust investigation found that two of the authorities involved in enforcing breaches of existing regulations in this area—the Animal and Plant Health Agency and trading standards—had no officers on active duty at ports of entry over weekends. Does she agree that, as well as passing this welcome piece of legislation, we need assurances from the Minister about the resourcing and capacity of those agencies to ensure the Bill is properly enforced?

[Selaine Saxby]

Although I agree that we need to ensure enforcement, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), I believe we have an opportunity today to highlight the need to educate people who are about to adopt a puppy or kitten. They need to ask those questions. If illegally imported animals are not adopted, the trade will dry up. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I also think we have an opportunity today to extend knowledge about the process of adopting —I have learned so much in developing this Bill.

The measures will be enacted through secondary legislation in order to refine the scope and detail of the policy and take on the views of the public and key stakeholders. The Bill provides that the prohibitions must be enacted the first time the enabling power is used in relation to dogs and cats in Great Britain to show commitment to delivering these measures. I have been assured by the Department, which I thank for its help in getting the Bill to this point, that it will lay secondary legislation as soon as possible following Royal Assent, and DEFRA officials are already working on developing it. That will ensure that the Bill is future-proofed and that it responds dynamically to smuggling practices.

As is the nature of organised crime, the illegal pet trade is unpredictable and ever-changing. These enabling powers will ensure the Government can tackle low-welfare imports dynamically. They provide the flexibility to address known issues quickly, and ensure that we can act in the future to close down emerging practices whereby people try to circumvent previous restrictions.

Finally, let me set out how this will be applied as a GB-wide Bill, and the extent and application involving the devolved Administrations. Clause 3 sets out the meaning of “appropriate national authority” regarding the devolved Administrations. Clause 8 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and describes the jurisdictions in which the Bill will form part of the law. The territorial extent and application of the Bill is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, except clauses 4, 5 and 6, which extend and apply only to England, Wales and Scotland.

The Bill relates to animal welfare, which is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, including in relation to the regulation of movement of animals for the purposes of protecting animal welfare. In Northern Ireland, animal welfare is generally a transferred matter, but the subject matter of this Bill means that the reserved matter in schedule 3(20) to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is engaged. I thank my DUP colleagues, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who are unable to join us today but have written to support the Bill.

Draft Biodiversity Gain (Town and Country Planning) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024 Draft Biodiversity Gain Site Register (Financial Penalties and Fees) Regulations 2024

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I thank the Minister for her explanation of the instruments. We welcome both sets of regulations, which are integral to rolling out the new biodiversity net gain framework and integrating it with the planning system.

Although both instruments are uncontroversial, I will take this opportunity to raise three concerns with the Minister that arise from them, relating to how the new framework will operate in practice. The first relates to outcomes. I am sure the Minister agrees that, when it comes to BNG, we should always aim for the optimum outcome in terms of biodiversity value. The statutory biodiversity metric is intended to provide a rigorous and transparent framework for assessing such value, and it is designed to ensure that the focus is on the quality of land used for mitigation rather than the quantity.

However, given that BNG can be achieved in a number of different ways, there is a clear risk that sub-optimal outcomes could be produced simply because they are easier or cheaper for developers to achieve. Provided everything permitted on the biodiversity gain site register is of high quality, it should eliminate that risk for off-site BNG commitments secured via units on the market. However, the risk will remain for off-site offsetting where developers use their own land, outside the development site. That is because—if I have understood the instruments correctly—they are under no obligation to register plans in such instances, and monitoring and enforcement will fall to overstretched local authorities. Will the Minister tell us how the Government intend to guarantee that all kinds of offsetting will prioritise high-quality habitats with the greatest biodiversity potential, rather than lower-quality habitats that might be easier and cheaper to set up and maintain?

The second concern relates to habitat monitoring and maintenance. The Environment Act makes it clear that habitats should be secured for a minimum of 30 years and that, when delivering BNG, the relevant planning obligations or conservation covenants should hold for at least the same period. Off-site land used for BNG, which is recorded and verified on the biodiversity gain site register, can obviously be effectively monitored. However, the onus for monitoring and enforcing on-site improvements will lie with local authorities. Given that management plans for development are not always monitored or enforced appropriately, can the Minister give us a sense of how the Government plan to ensure that local authorities consistently maintain improvements in biodiversity value over the long term?

The third concern relates to local planning authorities themselves. I have mentioned them several times, because the effective operation of the new framework will rely heavily on LPAs being able to carry out their new duties and obligations, whether that is scrutinising individual biodiversity gain plans or reporting on BNG delivery more widely. The Government committed to funding all new burdens on local authorities arising from the Environment Act, and have provided transitional funding for LPAs to prepare for the mandatory net gain requirement up to the end of the 2023-24 financial year. Will the Minister tell us when further funding, beyond the current grant period, will be confirmed, and give us a sense of what steps her Department and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are taking to help LPAs to secure the skills and expertise they are likely to need to meet the requirements of mandatory BNG? [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Minister?

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you, Sir Graham; as you can see, I was trying to scribble down those quite detailed questions. I thank the shadow Minister for supporting the statutory instruments, which, as he will realise, will be important not only for improving our developments and the way we live, but for restoring nature. They are going to be game-changing for our environment.

First, I want to clarify the date that I referenced for when local authorities will be required to report on their biodiversity net gain actions. The first report must be submitted in January 2026, and from then on it will be five-yearly. That addresses some of the points that the shadow Minister raised about whether the quality of the net gain will be good enough. The reporting requirement will make that transparent. That is one of the ways that we will be able to see that this is working and that the right nature is being delivered.

Of course, there is a whole process for developers to calculate how much nature they need to put back and to work out the credits. Natural England has a whole system for calculating biodiversity net gain credits. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been a huge amount of engagement for a number of years with stakeholders, local authorities, developers, Natural England and the Future Homes Hub, so that local authority planning departments understand what is coming their way and can handle it in the right way, and so that we get the right outcomes. A great deal of work has gone into that, and there is also draft guidance on all of that.

The hon. Gentleman asked in particular about enforcement, which is an important point. Local authorities have a range of existing planning enforcement tools at their disposal, and the Environment Act includes mechanisms to ensure that commitments through conservation covenants are adhered to. The enforcing body that has entered into agreements to secure the site will play the key role in enforcement. That may be the local authority, or it could be a responsible body for a conservation covenant—there are different ways of going about it. Significant on-site biodiversity gains must be secured by a planning condition, planning obligation or conservation covenant, all of which bind the land, which means they apply to successor landowners as well. Off-site biodiversity gains must be secured, including management by either a planning obligation or a conservation covenant. Failure to deliver or attempt to deliver biodiversity net gain outcomes that are secured with the conditions or obligations, subject to which the planning permission is granted, can result in enforcement action by the planning authority. I hope that makes the position clear.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for her response. All the processes that she has outlined, from the scrutiny of the initial plan to the monitoring and enforcement, rely on local authorities having the skills and capacity in this very specific and technical area, as she has made clear. Is it the Department’s contention that local authorities have the necessary skills and expertise to roll out the framework? If not, what steps is the Department taking to support local authorities in finding and bringing forward those skills and expertise?

[Rebecca Pow]

Obviously, that is an important issue to which a lot of attention has already been given. For example, I have spoken to my own local authority, which is rather excited about the whole process and has already had a lot of engagement on skills and training. But there will be more, and lessons will continue to be learnt as the whole system is rolled out and gradually reviewed. That is an important point because, for the system to work, local authorities need to know what they are doing. We have draft guidance, we have consulted widely and a lot of engagement is already taking place, but obviously more will be ongoing through both Departments.

COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing it and her powerful opening remarks. It has, as expected, been a wide-ranging debate with a large number of thoughtful and passionate contributions. Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides, particularly my own, will forgive me if I do not mention every one of them, but I feel I need to make an exception—perhaps put it down to old habits dying hard—to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), who brought home very early on in the debate the importance of the matter we are discussing.

Many critical issues need to be resolved at COP26, from finalising the Paris rulebook to essential specific side deals on such issues as the phasing out of coal, reductions in methane emissions and deforestation. However, given the prominent themes of this afternoon’s debate, I will focus my remarks on two key areas where decisive progress must be made at COP26, if it is not to be deemed a failure. The first is whether sufficiently ambitious near-term climate commitments can be secured to at least keep alive the hope of limiting global heating to 1.5°C. The second is whether the developed world will finally deliver for the developing in terms of climate finance and other forms of support.

Turning first to near-term climate commitments, in his speech in Paris last week the COP President argued that

“the world must deliver an outcome which keeps 1.5 degrees in reach.”

He was right to set himself and the world that test. Opposition Members have long called for delivering on the upper ambition of the Paris agreement to be the overriding priority for the conference. Anything else would send a clear signal that the UK was content to aim for an outcome that puts at risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said in his remarks, the very survival of vulnerable states on the frontline of the climate crisis.

The problem is that the Government have not done enough to explain what they mean by “keep 1.5 alive” or to initiate an open and transparent debate on the scale of global ambition required to achieve that outcome. As a result, we are heading into Glasgow with no real collective understanding of what is necessary to keep a limit of 1.5° within reach and every chance that the outcome will therefore fall far short of the expectations that have been generated.

That failure is all the more perplexing given how clear the science is. We know that for a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°, we need to halve global emissions by the end of this decade. We know that as a world, we are alarmingly off track, with the nationally determined contributions synthesis report published by the United Nations framework convention on climate change last month making it clear that, far from slashing emissions as required, current country pledges would lead to an increase in emissions of around 16% on 2010 levels by 2030, putting us on course for a disastrous 2.7° of heating, as many Members have said. I say to the Minister that the Government must now be open and honest with the country and the world about how much of the gap needs to be closed at Glasgow to keep 1.5° alive and what individual countries must do, in particular those major emitters who have yet to submit updated pledges, for that happen.

The Government also need to be clear about what more the world will have to do in the next few years, post COP26, to close the gap entirely. It is now abundantly clear that we cannot wait four years, or even until the global stocktake in 2023, to increase global ambition still further, if the world is to be put firmly on a 1.5° pathway. The Climate Vulnerable Forum recently proposed an emergency pact that would see states agree to return at each of the next three COPs with more ambitious targets, rather than waiting until 2025. It was telling that the COP President alluded to that proposal in his speech in Paris last week. When she responds, will the Minister confirm whether the COP President will be actively seeking agreement in Glasgow on a more regular ratchet mechanism to ensure that we make the requisite progress on mitigation in this decisive decade?

On the developing world, as Opposition Members have said many times in the last 18 months, it is vital that the voice of the global south is heard in Glasgow and that climate justice be prioritised. That is not just because it is morally right but because the negotiations are almost certain to break down if high-ambition developed countries do not retain the trust of, and thus secure buy-in from, climate-vulnerable states.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Leeds East and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and others, said, more than anything, solidarity with those states is dependent on the developed world finally honouring the 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to help developing nations to transition and adapt. Yet, with just 10 days left, a staggering $14-billion shortfall remains, and there is no sign of the promised German-Canadian delivery plan. We need clarity from the Government as to what progress they now expect on that issue before delegates arrive in Glasgow, and I urge the Minister to update the House on that.

As important as that $100 billion is, it is not the extent of the finance and support that developing countries will need. The world also needs to agree a significant increase on the $100 billion for the period up to 2025; to begin the process of establishing a post-2025 climate finance goal; to make tangible progress on ensuring that at least half of all climate funding is allocated to adaptation and that the balance shifts away from loans towards grants; and to deliver meaningful support, including financing, to address loss and damage and get the Santiago Network up and running, as the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) mentioned. Demands for progress in each of those areas have been made at COP after COP after COP, and Glasgow must be the occasion when the developed world finally acts to deliver on them.

Finally, I will touch briefly on the domestic situation, which has been a prominent theme of the debate. Of course the summit’s outcome will be shaped by prevailing geopolitical headwinds and any agreement that emerges will be the product of a phenomenally complex international negotiation, but it would be wrong to portray the role of the COP President as merely a convener or neutral broker. Those are key aspects of the role, but being the host state also confers on us a duty to set the pace on all aspects of the net zero transition and so maximise our influence in the negotiations and the chance of a successful outcome.

Opposition Members do not deny that the UK has set an example in several important areas, including publishing a detailed, albeit flawed, net zero strategy. One need only look, however, at the Treasury’s failure to lock in a genuinely green economic recovery by decisively closing the net zero investment gap to see that the Government have patently not been an exemplar across the board on climate policy and that there is much more they could do.

COP26 is our last best chance to show that the Paris agreement and climate multilateralism more generally work. Whether it is convincing G20 countries to do more, delivering for the developing world, or revisiting what exemplary climate action might be taken in the Budget and the comprehensive spending review here at home, the Government must now do whatever it takes to ensure this critical summit is the “turning point for humanity” that the Prime Minister has declared it will be.

COP26 Conference Priorities

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). This has been an excellent debate, with a great many heartfelt and incisive contributions from Members from both sides of the House. I congratulate, as others have done, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for sponsoring it.

We really do need more debates of this kind over the next 100 days. COP26 is, as others have said, a critical moment in the fight against runaway global heating, the impact of which we have seen over recent months in the devastating extreme weather events across the globe. The House has a real duty to engage with the complexities of this summit far more than it has done to date.

The Minister will know that over the past 15 months, the Opposition have not held back from criticising the Government for their lack of clarity on what they believe should be achieved over the course of those 12 days in Glasgow. Until a few months ago, Ministers had merely identified five key themes for the conference. They were then followed by four aims, one of which was the goal of

“working together to make the negotiations in Glasgow a success”.

That is all entirely laudable but also betrays a notable lack of strategic intent.

I will be more generous in saying that, although it needs to be built on further, there has been a noticeable sharpening of focus over recent months, particularly when it comes to being explicit about the objective that Labour believes must be the overriding priority for the summit, and that is the need to put the world decisively on course to deliver the upper ambition—it is only the upper ambition—of the Paris agreement, namely limiting global heating to 1.5° over pre-industrial levels. The problem is, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, that there is clearly not yet a global consensus on 1.5° being a core objective of the summit, as opposed to merely an aspiration. Indeed, Bloomberg reported just this morning that for the second time this month, G20 climate Ministers are struggling to reach agreement on that 1.5° target. We believe that, over the coming weeks, keeping 1.5° within reach must be hardened into a headline target for the summit. It is incumbent on us, as the host of COP26, to do everything possible to ensure it is.

Let me pick up some of the themes of the debate. I want to touch on four areas where greater progress is absolutely essential if we are to realise that aim, with an explicit focus not on the domestic but on the international, given that this is an international summit. First, the Government need to do much more with the presidency to initiate a genuine global debate on how we deliver at the scale and pace that the science requires. In particular, we need much more openness and transparency about the commitments required from each of the parties by the time they arrive in Glasgow to ensure that a limit of 1.5° remains a possibility. Put simply, if current country climate plans have the world emitting, as they do, about 54 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, and 1.5° requires that they fall to about 24 gigatonnes by that date, what collective commitments do we need in November at COP26 to put the world on course to meet that 30 gigatonne ambition gap by the end of the next nine years? That is the question, but there is no real debate around it at present and, in its absence, no collective understanding of what is necessary to keep 1.5° within reach.

Secondly—this is a point that a number of hon. Members raised, particularly the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—when it comes to mitigation ambition, we are currently way off track as a world. With just 100 days to go, the Government need to be straining every sinew possible to persuade, cajole and pressure those who have not yet done so to bring forward more ambitious nationally determined contributions. Countries such as Brazil that are making a mockery of the ratchet process by submitting new targets that are less ambitious than their previous ones need to be called out; those such as India and Saudi Arabia that are resisting the very proposition that the Paris agreement requires them to revisit their current plans at all need to be persuaded to think again, and quickly; and key allies such as Australia that are stubbornly refusing to improve on their inadequate 2030 targets need to start facing some public opprobrium for doing so. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether she agrees with those points.

Thirdly, as others have said, we have to make good on the promise of building back greener, not only in terms of domestic credibility and what that means in terms of our consistency and our leadership of the conference. The Chancellor has now passed up three fiscal opportunities, by my count—the 2020 summer statement, the 2020 comprehensive spending review, and the 2021 Budget—to lock in a genuine green economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis, with only £9.3 billion of funding focused on decarbonisation, £1 billion of which has been cut in the new green homes grant. That is dwarfed by levels of funding in other countries around the world, but the Chancellor’s failure is not unique: the International Energy Agency’s sustainable energy tracker estimates that only 2% of fiscal support across the globe is being directed towards clean energy investment. That is lower than the level of green spending we saw in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The world has simply got to do better if we are going to lock in that green recovery.

Fourthly and finally—this point was made powerfully by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—we must ensure that the voice of the global south is heard. We must ensure that climate justice is prioritised, and we must do more on a practical level to urgently forge a coalition between high-ambition developed countries and highly vulnerable developing countries, not least because that is the only way in which we will apply sufficient pressure on major emitters such as China. The occasional ministerial meeting cannot hide the fact that these issues have not been prioritised diplomatically over the past 15 months, and that ground needs to be made up urgently. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is going to need to be far more agile and focused on using all of the levers available to it to knit together that coalition.

The Minister may not say so, but she knows as well as I do the serious damage that the decision to cut the overseas aid budget has caused to our standing with those on the frontline of the climate crisis. She will also know how critical trust will be if we are to secure a successful outcome in Glasgow. That makes it all the more important, as many others have said, that we honour the 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to support developing nations. I would like to hear the Minister’s assessment of how that target will be reached in the coming weeks, and what more, if anything, the UK needs to contribute to ensure it is reached. Specifically—this is the one question I will ask the Minister, so I would really like an answer today, or subsequently in writing from a colleague if appropriate—can she confirm that a plan for meeting that $100 billion commitment will be brought forward by the UN General Assembly in September at the very latest, as 100 developing countries, including key Commonwealth allies, called for last week? Can she also assure the House that the UK will use its influence at the World Bank to ensure that it has a climate finance plan in place by the International Monetary Fund meeting scheduled for October?

In addition to that $100 billion, as others have said, we also need to make tangible progress over the next few months on the share of climate finance flowing towards adaptation; on financing for loss and damage; on arrangements for post-2025 climate finance; and on the wider issues, which are really important in their own right, of vaccines and the debt burden that developing countries are facing as a result of the pandemic. There are a range of other issues on which greater progress is required, whether that is the rules for article 6 and transparency that the hon. Member for Bath mentioned; financial flows for the phasing out of coal; or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) brought home powerfully in her contribution, nature and biodiversity. However, time prevents me from exploring any of them in this debate.

What is important for the purposes of today, as we approach the 100-day marker, is that the House realises that the window for securing the outcomes necessary to make COP26 a success is closing rapidly, and that the outcome of the conference hangs in the balance as a result. There is a pressing need to accelerate progress markedly in a range of areas where the UK, as COP president, can make a real difference, but for that to happen, this critical summit has to be made a whole-of-Government priority, with the sustained engagement and focus from the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Foreign Secretary that that implies. It is an open secret that we are not seeing that engagement or focus at the moment. Until we do, we run the very real risk of failure in Glasgow in November.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair for this very important debate, Mr McCabe. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for securing the debate. The fact that there have been so many speakers demonstrates the strength of feeling about this issue and the hope that we can use COP26, of which we are so proud to be co-president, to address the climate crisis. As has been pointed out by so many colleagues, we are just 100 days from COP26, where the global community will come together and, with one voice, demonstrate that we are living up to the expectations of the Paris agreement.

In response to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), yes, focus has been sharpened, and I am pleased that he has noted that. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), it will be a very inclusive COP26. We are championing inclusivity at COP26.

We have seen much more ambition this year, as countries have come forward with emissions reduction targets for 2030, including the US, Japan and Canada. We are now in a position whereby all the G7 countries, which are responsible for almost half of global GDP, have now committed to deeper cuts to their emissions over the next decade. Collectively, those commitments will bring us closer to the goal of keeping to an increase of 1.5°, which is so critical. However, it is obvious to us all that extreme weather events are made much more likely by climate change. We have had wildfires in North America and floods in China just this week, and we have a trail of devastation in so many places, reminding us how critical this issue is. It demonstrates that climate change is not a distant threat and that we need to take action right now in order to turn the tide on the climate crisis. That was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland in his opening speech, in which he spoke of the importance of using diplomatic pressure and targets. That is exactly what we will be doing through COP26.

I want to take this opportunity to update the House on progress across the four COP26 goals—mitigation, adaptation, finance and collaboration—and to highlight the role of parliamentarians. It is great to have hon. Members taking part in today’s debate, to ensure that COP26 in an inclusive event and that we are all playing our role. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said we are better together, and I could not agree more.

On mitigation, we are making good progress, with 71 nationally determined contributions submitted. The number is going up by the day and has just increased from 68 in the last 24 hours. They cover more than 90 priorities, including the EU and its 27 member states, and over 70% of global GDP is covered by a net zero target, including all G7 nations, which now have net zero targets for 2050. That has increased from around 30% since the UK assumed the presidency, so we are making progress. Of course, that is not to say that there is not a great deal more to do.

On adaptation, we are championing a number of initiatives, including the Adaptation Action Coalition, which aims to share knowledge and good practices. We have secured $175 million for the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership, which aims to improve early warnings. Across Government, adaptation is integrated through our policies, with Departments working together and using the national adaptation plan. Adaptation has been raised by a number of hon. Members, and that is obviously a critical element. On finance, of the $100 billion developed countries commitment, approximately $80 billion was reached in 2018, which is the last year that we have data for.

We are then pushing to meet and exceed the $100 billion target through to 2025, with the G7 leaders each committing to increase their overall international public climate finance contributions. There was criticism from a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but we have committed to maintaining our five-year pledge to spend £11.6 billion on climate finance for developing countries. Between just 2011 and 2020, 66 million people have been supported to cope with the effects of climate change.

On collaboration, the UK remains committed to facilitating agreement on an ambitious, comprehensive, and balanced set of negotiated outcomes at COP26. We are also planning for an in-person ministerial meeting in London at the end of July to build on our momentum. That will be a key step, bringing together more than 40 countries from the United Nations framework convention on climate change negotiating groups to delve into some of the key topics for negotiation at the actual conference. It will build those important relationships that we need to make progress.

Nature—a subject dear to my heart, due to my role as the Environment Minister in DEFRA—is a key theme of our COP presidency. If we are serious about mitigating climate change, adapting to its impacts and keeping to 1.5°, we must change the way we use and look after our land and water, and the ecosystems and biodiversity on which life depends. Agriculture, forest loss and land use contribute 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Nature-based solutions, such as trees, peatlands and wetlands, can provide a third of the most cost-effective climate change solutions. They pay their way by more than sixfold, so investing in those schemes is very much worth it. A number of colleagues touched on nature-based solutions: the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who referenced the blue economy; my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who is a great champion for this; and, indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford.

We have done some great work internationally on mangrove swamps, but here there is also huge mileage and potential on our salt marshes and our kelp beds. We are working with countries and communities to protect and restore forests and critical ecosystems, and to transition to sustainable agriculture, which was eloquently referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) when he referenced regenerative agriculture—something that I know is dear to his heart.

We want to ensure that nature is on a par with climate, recognising that nature, biodiversity and the climate crisis are inextricably interlinked. I am proud to say that DEFRA will be leading on the nature and land use day at COP, and there will be a number of events and receptions. I urge the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), to register his interest in coming on that day. He will be very welcome, as will his knowledge and input.

At the US leaders summit, Governments and companies came together to announce a coalition for lowering emissions by accelerating forest finance, called the LEAF Coalition. That is an ambitious public-private initiative, which aims to mobilise $1 billion in financing to accelerate climate action to protect tropical forests and support sustainable development. The forest, agriculture and commodity trade—FACT—dialogue, has also been established, bringing together 20 major producer and consumer countries to agree collective action for protecting forests while promoting trade and development.

Here, in the UK, as many colleagues will be aware, we are introducing a world-leading due diligence clause through the Environment Bill to tackle illegal deforestation in our supply chains. It is one of our much wider packages of measures to improve the sustainability of our supply chains. I hope that the EAC Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow—and indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith—will be pleased to hear that the cross-Government net zero strategy will be published ahead of COP26. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been leading on that, and has been commissioning work across Whitehall that will feed into it.

I take slight issue with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who says that there is no ambition and no direction for this COP, or, indeed, from this Government on their entire agenda. I will therefore rattle through a few things where I feel that we are demonstrating extreme ambition.

The UK was the first major economy to adopt a net zero target. We have the highest levels in terms of the UK’s nationally determined contributions. We are the fastest nation in the G7 to decarbonise cars, and we are doubling our investment on international climate finance. We have also set a target aiming to halt the decline in species abundance. I think that all that demonstrates that we really are leading by example, which is very important.

Mr Chairman, I know that you are wondering what will actually happen at COP26. We have now published our high-level programme. COP26 will open with a summit of world leaders, where each leader will set the direction for the following two weeks of negotiations. Then, there will be a lot of themed days, including on finance, energy use, public employment, gender, science, innovation and transport—a raft of different themes.

All Members will know that they should have received a letter just this week to invite them—both MPs and peers are invited—to register their interests in attending the summit and to specify which themed day they would like to attend. This will be for the blue zone and day passes will be issued. Allocations will be made per day, but obviously that will depend on the covid mitigation measures that are in place. Out of interest, 4,000 different organisations and bodies have applied to have a presence at the event and the team are trawling through those applications right now. We can see the interest in this tremendous opportunity to come and get involved.

I will also just flag up that a whole lot of resources are being made available to hon. Members and hon. Friends, which we hope everyone will engage with and then use within their constituencies, to go out to schools, to hold events with businesses and all the rest of it. There is an engagement pack. There is also a “Together for our Planet” schools pack, which is actually really rather good. It also shows schools how they might want to hold a green assembly, in which an MP could take part.

I must also flag up our own DEFRA-launched initiative called “Plant For Our Planet”. This is a hands-on initiative whereby we can all get involved in planting something, whether it is just something in a window box or on a verge in a town, or doing something with the community, so that we can all do our bit to tackle emissions and also help to tackle the biodiversity crisis—it genuinely will help. There is great information on the gov.uk website.

Penultimately, I will just turn back to the international stage for a minute. As we all know, the UK hosted the G7 event in June and at that event leaders committed to end international coal power finance in 2021 and replace it with more funding for renewables. The summit also spawned a number of climate finance commitments, including from Canada, to double its private finance, from Japan, and from Germany, which announced that it will increase its climate financing from €4 billion to €6 billion. Leaders also committed—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Do the Government agree that the $100 billion commitment needs to be met in full by the UN General Assembly in September, and that the $17 billion shortfall needs to be made up and cannot wait any longer if COP26 is going to be a success?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman raised that crucial point in his speech. That is why we are using our diplomacy to get other countries to help to commit to get to this sum, and it will be a key focus of the meeting he mentions. I was about to flag it up, but I now do not need to, because he has done it for me. And that comes ahead of COP26.

In conclusion, we have a momentum building up with that G20 leaders summit. We even have events with a COP26 focus, such as the Chelsea Flower Show. People will understand much more about what COP26 is about when they see plants and other things that will help us in climate change and in tackling the crisis.

COP26 will be a pivotal moment in securing our path to global net zero emissions by 2050. Together with our Italian partners and with leaders from across the globe, we will work to prevent global temperatures rising above 1.5° C. This is absolutely crucial. We have to act now; we cannot wait until we get to the end of the century, and we get to 3° C, and literally it will be a crisis. I think we all understand that. I believe that everyone in this room, whatever our views about whatever else, is all agreed on that, and that we must work together, using this COP26 opportunity and our influence on the global stage, so that we can literally save the planet.

Vessel Emissions: River Thames

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered emissions from vessels on the River Thames.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray, and I am pleased that amid the current political turmoil time has been found to debate this important issue, which is of real concern to large numbers of my constituents. I have been seeking the debate for some time, and I am grateful to the Minister who will respond to it on what has been short notice.

The Minister is well aware, not least because of the numerous times I have raised this in the main Chamber, of the historical proposal to construct a cruise liner terminal at Enderby Wharf in east Greenwich, in my constituency. That proposal was extremely contentious locally, not because large numbers of my constituents were implacably opposed to the siting of a terminal in the area or did not recognise that it had the potential to make a positive contribution to Greenwich in tourism, jobs and revenue for local business, but because residents would not accept—I count myself as one of them—the negative impact that the terminal as proposed would have had on local amenities and, in particular, on the quality of the air we breathe.

For that reason, I fought alongside local community and amenity groups to secure a clean, green terminal at Enderby Wharf—one that would have met the highest, not just the most basic, environmental and air quality standards—or, if one could not be secured, for the proposal to be scrapped altogether. In the end, after a sustained effort over several years to bring home to the developer the reputational cost of seeking to proceed with plans for a terminal that was not environmentally sustainable, we won: the then owner, investment bank Morgan Stanley, announced that it was scrapping its plans. On Friday 5 July, Criterion Capital, a property company that I understand owns and manages a £2 billion portfolio across London and the south-east of England and that has acquired the Enderby Wharf site from Morgan Stanley, confirmed that it would not revive plans for a cruise liner terminal on the site.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and congratulate him on his campaign to protect his residents against emissions from the Thames. My constituency is right across the Thames from his, and I was happy and proud to support his campaign. He has used the words “we won”, but is it not a shame that we were not able to secure the investment, jobs and all the rest of it to support London, the Thames and tourism because of the inability to agree a sustainably environmental project, which everyone would have welcomed had it been achieved?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a great frustration to him, as it was to me, that the developer would not listen and commit to plans for a clean, green terminal and shore-to-ship power.

Nevertheless, it was right that the proposals as set out were scrapped, and residents very much welcomed that. I also welcomed Criterion Capital’s confirmation that the proposals had been scrapped. However, the final demise of the terminal does not mean that the problem of toxic emissions relating to activity on the River Thames has been solved for those living in my constituency. The issue remains of emissions from other vessels using the river and, in particular for my constituents who live in west Greenwich, the emissions from the large number of cruise liners that dock at Greenwich pier each year.

In the time available I will argue that the Government must do more to address that problem and that the best means of doing so is by overhauling the fragmented arrangements in place for regulating the Thames and by establishing a coherent and effective emissions control framework for the river that will improve air quality for those communities that live beside it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The problem of emissions in London and on the Thames in particular is clear, but emissions throughout the United Kingdom are an important issue as well. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is important for the Lord Mayor of London, the Port of London Authority, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to come together to set emission reduction targets and to ensure that they are achieved?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a huge number of organisations have some regulatory role or other with regards to the river. As I will come on to argue, we need to bring some coherence and simplification to that by means of a single regulator for the Thames.

I do not need to spend much time outlining why air pollution is such a serious problem. There is growing awareness among the public about the fact that the toxic and illegal levels of air pollution across our country are an invisible hazard that contributes to the ill health and premature deaths of tens of thousands of people each year, including thousands of Londoners. There is a growing realisation that air pollution constitutes a public health crisis. The public are perhaps less aware of the fact that shipping emissions, in the form of nitrogen oxide and dioxide, as well as sulphur, are a major source of that pollution. Indeed, if concerted action is not taken, by 2020 shipping will be the biggest single emitter of air pollution in Europe.

As things stand, emissions from vessels on the River Thames are not the most significant contributor to air pollution in London, but their contribution is still significant. In the absence of concerted action, as road and other emissions sources are steadily reduced—for a variety of reasons—emissions from the river will account for a steadily higher proportion of London’s total. Crucially, emissions from the River Thames are necessarily concentrated in riparian parts of London such as Greenwich and Woolwich, which already suffer from incredibly poor air quality, in particular in hotspots such as east Greenwich or Charlton in the vicinity of the A102. That is why more must be done to bear down on emissions generated by vessels using the river, a huge variety of which do so, each and every day.

I have already mentioned that the primary concern in the corner of south-east London that I represent is the extremely large cruise liners that berth at Greenwich ship pier. According to the Port of London Authority, the body responsible for vessels mooring at the pier, 12 cruise liners berthed at Greenwich last year and a total of 14 are set to do so this year. The Minister probably has some sense of the size of vessel in question. They are huge. When berthed, such liners are, in essence, floating hotels and are required—in the absence of the shore-to-ship power for which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I were campaigning—to run their engines in order to serve their onboard guests.

I am no shipping expert, but my understanding is that an average cruise liner running its auxiliary engines while berthed burns approximately 700 litres of diesel fuel an hour, the equivalent of 688 idling heavy goods vehicles. By any account, the emissions they generate are considerable.

All such ships must of course comply with international emissions standards. Those are complex, with different standards for nitrogen oxides and sulphur, as well as with greenhouse gases at different tiers, but in general terms they require emissions from vessels to be equivalent to burning 0.1% sulphur fuel or less. That sounds stringent, but those standards need to be set in context. A limit of 0.1% sulphur fuel or less is more than 100 times the amount of sulphur permitted in road diesel.

It is true that river vessels are subject to progressively tightening emissions standards internationally, but it is also the case that new or forthcoming regulatory measures, such as the introduction of the North sea emissions control area from 1 January 2021, are not particularly ambitious. They will not apply to onboard generators used when a vessel is berthed; to vessels built before the date that the area comes into force; or to existing vessels that replace their engines with non-identical ones or that install additional ones. Given that vessels tend to have significantly longer lifespans than road vehicles, the impact of such measures on fleet renewal is likely to be minimal.

Personally, I do not believe that the solution to this problem is to ban all cruise liners from entering London. However, I am convinced that we require more stringent emissions standards for vessels using the River Thames, including cruise liners of the kind that berth at Greenwich Pier, than what is required now or will be required in future years by way of international shipping standards, so that the problem does not exacerbate already poor local air quality and adversely impact on the health of Londoners, in particular those living in developments close to the shoreline.

The barrier to more effective emission standards for vessels on the Thames is the fact that responsibility for regulation of the river is utterly fragmented—that was alluded to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and no existing regulator has a clear responsibility for improving air quality or reducing emissions overall. At present, a wide range of organisations either have responsibility for regulating different classes and uses of vessels on the Thames or have commercial influence on them through ownership or tendering. They include the Port of London Authority, the Environment Agency, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, riparian boroughs with boundaries that lie in the river itself, such as Greenwich, and Transport for London. By my calculation, there are more than 20 such organisations with some type of regulatory function.

The inherent conflicts of interest further complicate the problem of regulatory fragmentation. The Port of London Authority, for example, is under pressure to play its part in improving air quality in London and has developed a groundbreaking air quality strategy to that end. It is investing in a comprehensive air quality monitoring programme around Greenwich ship tier and is looking into the practicalities, costs and benefits that shore power might bring to its London moorings. Yet it receives income for the duration of each vessel’s stay at its moorings, including the large cruise liners that berth at Greenwich pier, and it has no formal responsibility to regulate the emissions generated by the vessels to which it issues licences.

That is not a criticism of the PLA or any other organisation with some form of regulatory role on the Thames or commercial influence. In fact, I am confident that each of them is doing as much as it feasibly can within the current framework. For example, Transport for London is developing a pier strategy that could incentivise the use of vessels with high emissions standards, and has led by example by ensuring that the Woolwich ferry service now has upgraded stage V, hybrid vessels, fitted with additional post-exhaust treatment to reduce emissions and an innovative docking system whereby new vehicles do not have to run their engines at berth.

Another example is the Mayor of London, who has allocated £500,000 from his air quality fund to retrofit 11 vessels, and commits in his transport strategy to support proposals to ensure that new and refurbished wharves, piers and canal moorings generate renewable power onsite.

The efforts undertaken by individual organisations, however, are necessarily piecemeal. They are not enough to adequately bear down on harmful emissions generated by vessels across the river as a whole, and they are not an adequate response to the issue of the most concern to those I represent: emissions from cruise liners berthing at Greenwich pier.

Two things are needed to tackle air pollution on the River Thames, alongside the Government’s wider measures for the UK as a whole. I hope the Minister, her officials and her colleagues in other Departments will give them serious consideration. The first is the establishment of a single overarching regulator for the Thames and London waterways, to replace the present fragmented regime. The second is the introduction of a coherent and effective London-wide emissions control framework on the river, to replace the patchwork of diffuse and overlapping responsibilities currently in place.

The current regulatory set-up for vessels on the river is not only complex and opaque but simply inadequate to reduce shipping emissions at the scale and pace required. Let me give a practical example of why that is the case. The various organisations that have responsibility for regulating different classes and uses of vessels on the river must accept each other’s licences in certain circumstances. That means that any positive action by one organisation with regulatory responsibility can easily be undermined by another. It is a classic collective action problem. The PLA’s green tariff, which has been moderately successful at places such as Tilbury, will never work as effectively as a coherent London-wide framework for emissions standards on the river, because its impact can easily be undermined by the behaviour of less proactive organisations.

The situation cries out for a coherent and consistent approach. Replacing the current multi-regulator system with a single overarching one, either by creating a new regulator or by empowering an existing one such as the Port of London Authority, would increase transparency and accountability. It would ensure the consistent application of standards that we do not have at present and, for that reason, it would increase investment in emissions reductions technologies and infrastructure, and in cleaner vessels by operators. It would also reduce bureaucracy as it would necessarily entail a reduction in the number of enforcement and licensing authorities. That new system would require primary legislation but, assuming that the Government are still committed to introducing an environment Bill in the next Session of Parliament, it could easily be achieved by means of that proposed legislation.

I do not pretend to have a detailed blueprint of precisely what powers such a regulator would have; it might simply be authorised to set minimum emissions limits for the Thames that differ from those set internationally by the International Maritime Organisation. It could oversee and enforce a system much like the ultra low emission zone, where standards are set and non-complaint vessels are not banned but simply deterred from using the Thames or incentivised to upgrade by means of appropriate charging structures.

It is important that the Government recognise the case for reform and act. It is right that plans for a polluting Enderby Wharf cruise liner terminal have been scrapped for good. However, the demise of the terminal proposal does not mean that the problem of toxic emissions generated by vessels on the Thames has been solved. In the current situation, Londoners who live near, travel on, or work on or close to the river are not adequately protected. My constituents are not protected from air pollution generated by vessels on the Thames, particularly those living in west Greenwich, who must live with emissions from the scores of cruise liners that berth at Greenwich pier each year.

I recognise that the Government’s focus to date has been on tackling shipping emissions at an international level. However, I urge the Minister to work in partnership with the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly to give London the means to solve this problem by overhauling the fragmented regulatory arrangements that are currently in place, and by working to introduce a single regulator for the Thames that can oversee and enforce stringent emissions standards. Improving the air quality on and around our capital’s river is an essential part of addressing the public health crisis we face. When it comes to tackling air pollution in London, the River Thames cannot be an afterthought.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on his perseverance in securing this debate. I read on his blog that he had been putting in for it for some time, and I congratulate him on his tenacity. I welcomed the interventions from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and our very good friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is right to suggest that, although this debate is about the Thames, there may be similar issues in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Improving air quality and reducing emissions is a top priority for the Government. I assure hon. Members that we are committed to reducing emissions from ships and river transport, to reduce their impact on the environment and subsequently improve public health. While it is important that we continue to improve air quality on the Thames, it is also important to remember that the river has contemporary importance as a transport route and plays a role in reducing congestion and pollution on London roads. For example, the Battersea power station project is using the Thames to transport materials, avoiding road transport, and hon. Members will have seen the barges going past the House of Commons that take a lot of waste out towards east London and beyond.

Unusually, I am assisted today by officials from another Department, as a lot of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich relate to the Department for Transport. Although it is for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to respond to this debate, given the mention of emissions and vessels, I emphasise that our Departments are working together on this issue. I am pleased to be supported by high-level officials from the Department for Transport, who have supplied some helpful notes—and may need to supply a few more if there are further interventions.

Air quality is improving nationally. We published our clean air strategy earlier this year, which the World Health Organisation welcomed as an

“example for the rest of the world to follow”.

I am proud that it is the most ambitious air quality strategy in a generation, which aims to cut air pollution and save lives. It sets out how we will work towards some ambitious targets, working closely across all parts of Government and society to meet those goals. The broad scope of actions outlined in the strategy reflects the fact that if we are to fully address poor air quality, we need to look beyond roadside emissions to the full range of pollution sources that contribute to the problem in a systemic way.

We have new and ambitious goals, intended legislation, investment and policies to help us to clean up our air faster and more effectively. In line with that approach, the clean air strategy identifies shipping and river transport as a potentially significant source of local public exposure to harmful pollutants that we must address. When preparing with officials for the debate, I was under the impression that approximately 1% of London’s emissions are considered to come from the river, and I have more to say on the further work we intend to undertake on that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the complexity of the regulation of vessels on the River Thames, and the impact on air quality. It is true that there are multiple agencies and authorities with responsibility for regulating the different classes and uses of vessels, including those on the Thames, and for driving efforts to improve air quality in London. He suggests that the system is fragmented. I recognise that it has complexity, which is due to the need to appropriately regulate a diverse group of international, inland and domestic vessels. The intricacy is a barrier to understanding emissions from vessels, and it is increasingly a barrier to identifying where further supportive or regulatory action could be necessary.

The Government recognise that, to tackle emissions from shipping effectively, we need first to have a better understanding of the emissions, and then to review the technical, operational and regulatory options that are available. In July, the Government launched a wide-ranging call for evidence, seeking to close this evidence gap. The call is open until 11 January 2020. The time provided for the call is deliberately lengthy, so that we can maximise participation from groups such as operators of smaller vessels, which tend to be busiest in the warmer summer months.

Let me set out the action that the Government have already taken, and are planning to take in the future, to control emissions from vessels in UK waters and on our waterways. The Government are keen to ensure that air pollution from ships is reduced, with a long-term goal set out in the clean maritime plan to achieve a zero-emissions domestic shipping sector by 2050. Significant action has already been taken to tackle this important issue in a number of key areas.

At UN level, with the International Maritime Organisation, we have consistently pressed for the most stringent international controls in high-risk areas such as the North sea and the English channel, with the result that they are internationally recognised as sulphur emission control areas. In 2015, a sulphur cap of 0.1% was introduced in the North sea emission control area, including the Thames, entailing a tenfold reduction from the previous sulphur limit of 1%. The IMO has further agreed a 0.5% sulphur limit for global shipping outside emission control areas from 1 January 2020—a reduction of 3 percentage points from the current limit.

Importantly for the UK and the Thames region, the IMO has also agreed to the introduction of a NOx emission control area for the North sea from 1 January 2021. As the hon. Gentleman identified, this will reduce NOx emissions from new ships operating in this area by around three quarters. I asked exactly the same question that he did: why does this apply only to new ships? It is because this is the agreed approach on IMO rules. They are applied to new ships only and do not apply retrospectively.

Furthermore, the UK has been at the forefront of pushing for an ambitious strategy at the IMO to reduce greenhouse gases from shipping. Member states have committed to phasing out greenhouse gas emissions from shipping as soon as possible in this century, and by at least 50% by 2050. As part of this work, we have secured mandatory energy efficiency requirements for new ships entering the fleet, with a resulting reduction in fuel consumption and associated air pollution from such vessels.

All these controls have delivered and will continue to deliver major emissions reductions and benefits to air quality. They have also stimulated the development and uptake of alternative fuels, innovative green technologies and new ship designs that offer a long-term route to zero-emissions shipping. The Government intend to introduce the Environment Bill when parliamentary time allows. The principal aim of the air quality provisions in the Bill is to enable stronger, more effective action to be taken on addressing the health impacts associated with poor air quality.

More specifically for shipping, the clean maritime plan that was launched in July establishes the Government’s environmental route map for shipping and builds on the vision found in our “Maritime 2050: navigating the future” publication, which aims to shape up the future of the maritime sector and includes a long-term vision of zero-emissions shipping. The core commitments in the clean maritime plan include a call in 2020 for evidence on non-tax incentives to support the transition to zero-emissions shipping, a consultation on how the renewable transport fuel obligation could be used to encourage the uptake of low-carbon fuels in the maritime sector, and a green finance initiative that will be launched next week during London international shipping week. As the DFT has written this part of the speech, I hope I have not done an unscheduled release of that information—I am sure the Department is being careful.

We have set up a working group and study to identify and support potential UK zero-emissions shipping clusters, which could include the Thames. There is also Government support for clean maritime innovation in the United Kingdom, including funding of £1.3 million to support clean maritime innovation through Maritime Research and Innovation UK—MarRI-UK. There is grant support for early-stage research projects related to clean maritime, and a Clean Maritime Award to celebrate leaders in the field of emissions reduction. A maritime emissions regulation advisory service—MERAS—will be in place by 2020 to provide dedicated support to innovators using zero-emissions propulsion technologies. The clean maritime plan also contains a number of zero-emissions shipping ambitions and outlines the Government’s vision for the future of zero-emissions shipping and the milestones that will need to be achieved to reach it.

The clean maritime plan was launched on the Thames, with the port of London’s first hybrid tug alongside, and it is intended to be the first step in a journey to deliver zero-emissions shipping in the UK. The Government welcome and encourage Thames stakeholders to engage with the MarRI-UK innovation fund, and to consider how our plans for green finance could support emissions reductions on the river. As I highlighted at the start of my response, the call for evidence is currently open and seeks to gather information on emissions from vessels operating domestically in UK waters, including inland waterways such as the Thames. The outcome will play a key role in formulating future policies.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about what could be done to have a London-wide framework for emissions standards. It is interesting to consider how we can make that work together—particularly with the Mayor for London, but also with the Department for Transport. My understanding is that, with all the different bodies to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, the Government do not deem it appropriate to have a single body undertake such work in the future. I appreciate that it might appear complex, but once we have the information to understand the source of emissions, it will allow the bodies that already work together rather effectively to do that even more, with the evidence to support that work.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to existing cruise liners. I recognise that the proposals for Enderby wharf have been dropped, but it is important to stress that we need to make changes at the IMO, which is an international organisation, and to the international nature of shipping, so that, as an island nation, we can continue to make sensible progress as we go forward.

By sharing some of the detail of the clean maritime plan—the hon. Gentleman referred to aspects of technology that he hopes will come along further—I hope I have addressed many of the points that he raised. I can assure him that the Government are committed to addressing emissions from shipping, including both our international and domestic fleets.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Before the Minister brings her remarks to a close—I appreciate the complexity and cross-departmental nature of this issue, so I am happy for her to write to me—it would be good to have some idea about what dialogue is happening between her Department, DFT, the Mayor of London and the Deputy Mayor on the issue of a single regulator. I note what she says about the Government’s position, but they are convinced that this is the way forward.

[Dr Coffey]

Well, I will not commit to write to the hon. Gentleman personally, but I will share his request with the Maritime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I know she is a responsive Minister and will do her best to work on that.

We have taken concerted action internationally to tackle emissions from ships. We are working actively to better understand the domestic issues in order to inform future policy decisions. I invite the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and indeed all hon. Members who represent constituencies along the Thames, to participate in the call for evidence that will shape our next steps.

Question put and agreed to.

Environment and Climate Change

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

In the short time I have, I want to make three simple points in support of the motion. The first is that it is essential that this House formally declares an environment and climate emergency. I listened to the Environment Secretary, and I do not believe that he formally committed the Government to doing so, but he did recognise that the situation that we face is an emergency—by contrast to what the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth said last week. I will quote what she said, because it struck me at the time:

“I do not see the point of saying anything unless we take action”.—[Official Report, 23 April 2019; Vol. 658, c. 612.]

I do not think that she could have been more wrong, because language matters. Of course deeds must follow words, but the manner in which we define problems in turn shapes our conceptions not only of the range of possible solutions, but also of what is necessary.

We have to stop talking about climate change as though it were some benign force and start talking about what we are really confronting: an ongoing and accelerating crisis from which no one will escape and which will have profound and potentially existential consequences for everything that every one of us holds dear. That is arguably a reason that the Extinction Rebellion movement has struck a chord and it is why—at least to my mind—a degree of alarmism is entirely justified, as long as that fear acts as a clarion call to act, rather than merely provoking a sense of hopelessness. Complacency remains the greatest barrier to the response that is required. We must therefore do everything we possibly can to bring home to the public the nature of the threat we face and to build consensus for the kind of disruptive change that will inevitably have to take place as we respond to it.

My second point is that the unique situation in which we find ourselves demands a far more vigorous response than the Government have provided to date, and it demands that that response begins now. There is no doubting that there is cause for pride in the UK’s record when it comes to climate action, but it is also undeniably the case that the reductions achieved over recent years are largely the result of having picked the low-hanging fruit, that our annual rate of emissions reduction is slowing and that we are not on track to meet our binding emissions targets.

Where, then, is the commitment from the Government to bold policies of the kind that would drive deep decarbonisation across the whole economy and get us back on track? Given all that we know—the fact that the Paris pledges will still amount to 2.7 °C of warming and that we are not on track to meet those pledges—our collective response cannot simply be business as usual. Legislating for net zero emissions by 2050 should be the absolute minimum that we are aiming for, and it should spur a far more ambitious policy agenda.

My third and final point is that the institutions of government as they are currently organised are simply not set up for the scale and pace of the transition required to avert catastrophic climate breakdown. The abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change three years ago was a serious mistake, but it was also emblematic of a more deep-seated failure on the part of the Government to accord emissions reduction the status it requires. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, I remember repeatedly pressing the then Secretary of State on the inadequacies of the clean growth inter-ministerial group, but at least a body of that kind existed at that time; it does not now. If the Government were really serious about this crisis, their response would be driven relentlessly from the centre, with the institutional architecture put in place to co-ordinate and drive progress across all Departments, with emissions reduction woven throughout Government policy; it is not.

In all likelihood, we have probably already squandered the opportunity to avert an unprecedented degree of warming, but what we do in the coming 10 to 15 years will determine whether we avert even more drastic change and the suffering that will surely define a world where emissions continue to rise unabated. We must declare an environment and climate emergency, act in a way that is commensurate with such an emergency and reform the machinery of government so that we are able to drive forward this agenda. That is why I will wholeheartedly support the motion this evening.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up this debate for the Opposition. It has been a good debate. It was opened by the Environment Secretary, who made a powerful case for why a no-deal Brexit should be opposed, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who, as always, rose to the occasion with his usual rigour and honesty. We have had passionate contributions from, among others, my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), all of whom spoke with great force.

What I have taken from today’s debate is that exiting the EU without an agreement is not simply one among several equivalent Brexit options—it is in a category of its own. Everyone will have their own views on the balance of strengths and weaknesses of other options, whether it be a Canadian-style free trade agreement or a Norway-style arrangement, and the appropriateness of the trade-offs and compromises involved in each. But those options can at least be contemplated rationally on the basis of their likely consequences for our economy and our security, their implications for the Irish border, and their chances of successfully emerging from the detailed negotiations on the future relationship.

In contrast, it is hard to overstate how damaging a no-deal exit from the EU in just over a fortnight would be, and speech after speech today has brought that home. A no-deal Brexit is simply not a viable option. Indeed, an exit from the EU on 29 March, or indeed any date thereafter, without agreement would be nothing short of a national disaster—a point that Labour Members have endlessly repeated over the past two years. A no-deal Brexit would affect every facet of our national life, and every region and nation of the UK. It would bring to an end, at a stroke, the whole body of legal arrangements that exist between the UK and the EU, plunging us into a legal and regulatory vacuum.

The focus of much of today’s debate has rightly been on the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the economy—and for good reason, given the implications for businesses and individuals across the UK. The implications of crashing out without a deal on 29 March would be significant both in terms of lost growth over the long term and the grievous dislocation that we face in the short term. The proposals for tariffs under a no-deal exit that the Government published this morning, without any consultation with business, merely serve to underline what a disastrous outcome a no-deal exit would be.

However, the impact of a no-deal departure is about much more than just tariffs. It would mean a sudden and drastic change in the entire body of rules that currently govern how we trade in a range of crucial areas. It would threaten the complex law enforcement and judicial co-operation arrangements that keep Britain safe. It would almost inevitably result in infrastructure being placed on the Irish border, place untold strain on the Good Friday agreement and Anglo-Irish relations more generally, and exacerbate the current political instability in Northern Ireland, raising the spectre, as the Secretary of State for the Environment said at the outset, of direct rule from Westminster.

In short, such an exit is the hardest and most chaotic of departures. It provides no certainty, and no one can say with any real certainty just how extensive the damage would be. Of course we would survive, but why would any Government force the British people to cope with an entirely avoidable act of self-harm that opinion polling suggests only a minority of the public support? No responsible Government in their right mind should countenance a no-deal exit from the EU, especially when, as the hon. Member for East Surrey brought home in his contribution, the other side knows full well that it has always been a hollow threat.

The tragedy is that instead of simply announcing that under no circumstances will the UK leave the EU without a deal, this Government adopted such an outcome as their official plan B, endlessly repeating over months the nonsensical mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, in a way that has de-sensitised many people in our country to the risks involved. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) said, the Government have spent a significant sum of public money trying to ensure that they are prepared for no deal—and trying is the operative word, because we know from the Government’s own impact assessment summary that the UK is simply not prepared to leave the EU on 29 March.

If we leave aside the legislative burden that still needs to be faced, the impact assessment makes clear that Departments are on track for just over two thirds of the most critical projects. It is honest about the fact that, in the event of a no-deal exit, the UK would be at the mercy of the actions of the European Commission, EU member states and EU businesses. That brings me to my next point, which is that there is no such thing as a managed no deal—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of background noise. I am not sure that the acoustics are as helpful as they might be, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I urge him to project. Speak up, man—we want to hear you.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I shall do my best, Mr Speaker.

There is no such thing as a managed no deal, despite the protestations of the more cavalier Members on the Government Benches. It is a myth, and that is why the idea of no deal as an act of national liberation is so misleading. Not only would the Government in all likelihood lose control of events in a no-deal scenario, but they would inevitably end up supplicating before the EU. The Government’s own technical notices make clear that in a no-deal scenario, agreement is required from Brussels in a swathe of areas.

If anyone thinks that, amid the acrimony that would exist following a no-deal exit, the EU would ride to the rescue and agree to a raft of reciprocal mini-deals in all the essential areas required, a waiver of the Union’s rules or a standstill transition period without a withdrawal agreement, as amendment (f) suggests, they should remind themselves of the Commission’s plans for a no-deal exit. Those plans make it absolutely clear that the EU will agree to co-operative measures only where strictly necessary and where it is in their own interests. The plans make clear that those measures could not replicate the benefits of membership of the Union and state plainly that they could be revoked at any time.

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way, because I want to ensure that the Secretary of State for International Trade has sufficient time.

It is yet another example of the misplaced confidence that has defined the approach of hard-liners on the Government Benches. Just like the notion of a cost-free, no-deal exit, it is a fantasy. That is why so many Government Members, including many members of the Cabinet, whether they said so publicly or not, know that a no-deal exit is not a viable option and that it must be ruled out.

This House has already made its intentions clear in relation to a no-deal exit on two separate occasions. I agree with the comments made in all quarters today that the way the Government have framed their motion is disappointing. At worst, it is contradictory. At best, it is ambiguous, and as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said, it certainly raises suspicions.

It is of course a statement of fact that the current legal default remains that the UK leaves the EU on 29 March, and if we rule out a no-deal exit tonight, we will of course have to amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Act accordingly, just as we would have had to amend it if the Government’s deal had passed yesterday. We will have to agree to an extension of the article 50 process so that an alternative way forward can be found. Both are a given.

However, the only question before us this evening is: does this House, in principle, definitively rule out a no-deal exit under any circumstances? No other question needs to be determined today, and that is why our preference is to support amendment (a).

There are only 16 days left now until 29 March. The possibility of a no-deal exit, whether by accident or design, is still very real, as the Father of the House made clear in his contribution. It is time we made a no-deal Brexit an impossibility, and this could be our last chance to do so. That is why I urge right hon. and hon. Members from across the House to decisively rule out a no-deal Brexit this evening, so that tomorrow we can turn our attention as a House to shaping what happens next.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is not only the vital food produced by farmers in lowland and upland parts of Cumbria but their work to ensure that one of the most beautiful parts of our country remains beautiful that deserves support. The provisions in our Agriculture Bill will ensure not only that food production is given the prominence it deserves but that environmental and other services that farmers are responsible for providing are properly rewarded.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

T6. Scores of large, polluting cruise liners moor at Greenwich pier each year. What are Ministers prepared to do to support better efforts to regulate shipping emissions on the River Thames?

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes two very important points. On the first point, we absolutely need to make sure that the infrastructure is there, and his second point is also important. One of the reasons why we cherish the environment is natural beauty. When we think about the steps we take to safeguard and enhance natural beauty, we should think about man’s contribution to making sure that the aesthetics around us reflect the best of us. The best of us is, of course, exemplified by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

My constituents and Londoners more generally want more ambitious measures implemented, and sooner, than are outlined in the Government’s strategy. They breathe in toxic fumes on a daily basis. Why has London been exempted from the clean air fund?

[Michael Gove]

We have specific arrangements with the Mayor of London to ensure we can help him to meet his ambitions. I saw the Mayor last night. I do not expect him to endorse everything in this package, but I find his constructive approach to working with central Government to improve air quality heartening. We will continue to work with him. A little while back the Mayor himself said that while resolving road emissions was critical to improving air quality, there are many other things that the Government are required to do. It was partly a result of what the Mayor said that we brought forward the strategy today.

Air Quality Strategy

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. A number of advisers and, indeed, serving Members on the Labour Benches now admit that their decision to promote diesel between 2000 and 2008 was not the right decision. The decision to promote diesel was a great shame, because we are now trying to deal with some of the consequences of that. It is important that we have cross-party co-operation to try to make sure that we tackle what is a very significant issue.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As we all know, air pollution contributes to the premature deaths of tens of thousands of people, but do I take it from the Secretary of State’s previous answer that she thinks air pollution is only a public health issue and is not categorically a public health emergency?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Clean air is a top priority for this Government. We have been working on our new proposals for the last five months and are ready to go with them. We are now seeking a very short deferral to meet the propriety rules around purdah, but we do not expect that that will delay the implementation of our plans to deal with what is a very significant and urgent concern.