Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Neil Parish Excerpts

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

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this historic debate. After 40 years, we can now look at a fishing policy for the United Kingdom, and it is a great moment. I sat in the European Parliament for 10 years, and I do not think many in this House, whether they liked the common agricultural policy or not, would stand up and support the common fisheries policy, because it was not a great success. This is the moment to rectify many of the wrongs that happened. As I have said before in the Chamber, there is no doubt that when we went into what was the Common Market back in the 1970s, the fishing industry paid a heavy price, and it is time to put that right. Not only was the share of fish wrong for United Kingdom fishermen, but the policy also saw millions of tonnes of healthy fish being discarded over the years. We now have the opportunity to put that right.

I very much welcome the Bill. The Government will probably be delighted that I am fully supporting them tonight; I will make no further comment on that. I support Government new clause 8, because we need to bring back control of our waters, so that we can catch more fish and manage it more sustainably. We also need to remember that many fish stocks move between national waters, and because there is common access to them, they are at risk of being over-exploited. We can do much more to manage this as an independent coastal state than we could when we were part of the common fisheries policy.

I think we can all agree that the common fisheries policy was not ideal. It was cumbersome and slow, and getting 26 member states to agree to any changes in policy was almost impossible. Outside the common fisheries policy, we can shut down places that are being overfished more quickly, like Norway, and open up other fishing grounds that can be exploited. I am glad that Ministers have been closely following the way that Norway approaches its agreements. We have signed an agreement with the Norwegians, which shows that this can be done; there is only the mere detail of signing the agreement with the EU, but that is proving a little difficult at the moment. Each year, our UK fishing fleet lands £32 million-worth of fish from Norwegian waters, so this is an excellent start.

We eat a great deal of cod in this country, some of which we catch and much of which we import. We have to ensure that we keep our export markets, because we export much of the fish we catch. In coastal communities like mine—we have a little coastline in Seaton, Branscombe and Beer; it is not massive, but it is there—people expect to see great benefits from leaving the common fisheries policy, and we need to see that turned into a physical reality. The Government are right to drive a hard bargain on fishing in these negotiations, because it is something that people really care about. We said in our manifesto that we would bring back our sovereign waters and the fish that come with it. It is socially and economically important to see the regeneration of our coastal communities after Brexit.

Our fishing sector employs over 25,000 people. Around 18,000 work in the fish-processing industry, which is important. It is important to enhance the fish processing industry and we have a great need to market this great fish that we catch. We have the opportunity to improve our dietary habits and eat a little more different fish. Many of those can be caught in Cornwall, and even those of us who live in Devon would be very happy to buy some Cornish fish.

Most of our fisheries are small family businesses. Over 80% of them employ fewer than five people. We can grow the sector with access to more fish and good reciprocal deals. Lots of people say that the fishing industry is not important, but I believe that it is very important to this country because we are a coastal nation. It is interesting that we can and will eat more fish. The more we have control over our fishing waters, the more interest there will be in eating fish. People are becoming more and more interested in the food they eat, and fish will be very much part of that.

The UK has a large fishing zone compared with many of our continental neighbours. Under the common fisheries policy, EU fishermen benefit hugely from reciprocal access to UK waters. In 2015, for example, EU vessels caught some 383,000 tonnes in UK waters, raising some £484 million in revenue. In the same year, UK vessels caught only 111,000 tonnes in EU member states’ waters, raising £114 million, so there is a great benefit to leaving the common fisheries policy. EU vessels benefited by a ratio of 6:1 under the CFP. I do not think anyone could believe that that is fair. We need to rebalance this and reduce EU vessels’ access to a more sustainable level. We are an independent coastal state. We reclaim our waters, we reclaim the fish and then we sit down and negotiate, under our rules and regulations, what access there may or may not be to European vessels.

When we leave the common fisheries policy at the end of this year, we will have control over our waters. This will be good for our marine environment and good for local fishing industries and coastal communities, who will benefit from a greater catch, especially for our under- 10 metre fleet.

The Government have been wise to look at the Norway model when it comes to fisheries because Norway has far greater control over its waters and acts quickly to shut them down if they are being over-fished. The Fisheries Bill is therefore a great opportunity to ensure that we can operate a more dynamic fisheries management system. The Bill is also a significant opportunity to deliver a much needed reversal of the fortunes of coastal communities and small-scale fishers, and I greatly welcome the direction of travel of our DEFRA Ministers. I also look forward to being able to help the sea anglers of this country and make sure that they have access to fish, because they are a huge economic benefit to the fishing industry but also to recreational fishing.

I welcome the Bill tonight.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 to 7 and amendment 57 tabled by the Scottish National party.

It is notable that when Brexit negotiations ran into trouble recently the first concession that the Prime Minister’s hand-picked negotiator reached for was fishing. Straight off the bat, fishing was first to be sacrificed. It will be for a few years at first, but there will be more, step after step, until the promises that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made to foreign fleets will be realised. Their access to our waters will be assured.

The fact that the PM picked this negotiator and, one has to assume, gave him his instructions, shows that the attitude that the fishing industry is expendable goes right to the top of the Tory party and right to the heart of the UK Government. Given the impact a no-deal exit would have on the industry, getting a deal is essential, but in order to get a deal, this Government look willing to sell out the industry. Heads and the fishing industry loses; tails and the fishing industry loses also.

Agriculture Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order. As he is an experienced Member of the House, he knows that when Mr Speaker and the Public Bill Office look at these amendments, they do so very thoroughly. Although they do not have to give a reason why an amendment is allowed or not allowed, the statement that I have just made is quite rare in the 28 years that I have been a Member—and I think Mr Speaker has done rather well, to be honest.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not really Mr Speaker I wish to challenge. I just want to say that it was not beyond the wit of Ministers to table a money resolution so that we could have dealt with amendment 18. This has put Mr Speaker in a very difficult position.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that I speak on behalf of Mr Speaker when I say how grateful he is for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and the way in which he has made it. Those on the Treasury Bench have heard his point.

Clause 4

Multi-annual financial assistance plans

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

My right hon. Friend will be very pleased, when I come on to that section of my speech, to hear the reassurances that I hope I will be able to give him.

Back to amendment 9, and I think the report we have promised within six months of Henry Dimbleby’s report will in fact come sooner than is set out in this amendment.

The response to the pandemic has demonstrated again and again the resilience of our UK food supply chain, and I am really pleased with how well Government and industry have worked together. I would like to thank everyone in the food industry—from our farmers to those in retail and everybody in between—for responding so quickly and efficiently to some very challenging conditions.

It was a real privilege to chair the cross-Whitehall ministerial taskforce, which tried to ensure that food and other essential supplies reached the vulnerable. We worked with industry to smooth the way wherever possible, including relaxing competition laws and drivers’ hours. We have also worked with retailers to massively increase the number of online delivery slots. We are all too aware that many find themselves in food poverty for the first time. As the taskforce, we were able to secure £16 million, which we gave to frontline charities that are directly helping get food to those in need, and we allocated £63 million to local authorities so that they can provide direct support to people who cannot afford food.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently did a covid report, and the £63 million and the £16 million were really important in getting food out to those in society who need it most. May I have an assurance that if it is needed again, we will move very quickly to get it there? Unfortunately, after covid there will be a higher number of unemployed and great pressure on food and food security.

[Victoria Prentis]

I met the Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society last week to discuss how effective that local authority grant was. I know that my hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this space, has also taken evidence to that effect. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks right now, but I assure him that I will make sure that those comments are fed through and, if the need is there, that that is seen as one of the options available and a very direct way of getting money to those who are in food poverty. The Trussell Trust is itself preparing a report on how effective that grant has been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I must politely disagree. I do not think that there needs to be any amendment to the Bill in order to continue the great work that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is undertaking. It was set up without the benefit of legislation; it does not need that. I have just set out why it was set up in a time-limited way, in order to produce a report that will be debated in the House this term, which is useful, as it will feed into the negotiations. It was set up with that timescale in mind. Whether we want to set it up for future trade agreements is something to discuss another day, but I do not agree that it has anything at all to do with the Bill.

[Neil Parish]

I accept that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not my hon. Friend’s responsibility. However, on amendments 12 and 16, if the Government could come forward with a proposal to extend its life or to set up a smaller commission to deal with individual trade deals, they would see off any possible rebellions tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Neil Parish.

[Neil Parish]

It is great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and to speak in this debate. I say clearly that I shall be supporting amendments 2, 12 and 16 tonight and I will explain why.

This Agriculture Bill goes exactly in the right direction. As we have left the common agricultural policy, we can now move in a more environmental direction. We can bring in much more rotation of crops and go back to traditional types of farming. We can reduce nitrates and pesticides, plant more trees, capture carbon in more grassland, have more grass-fed beef and lamb, and produce poultry and pigs to very high standards. We are reducing all the time the amount of antibiotics used, and we are creating a much greater and better product. Animal welfare is at the centre of our production.

I welcome the fact that our farmers have produced such excellent food throughout this pandemic, and I pay tribute to the food processing industry, which is worth £120 billion to this country. It is the largest manufacturing industry in this country and 60% of the food that is processed is produced in this country under very high standards. So the whole direction of the Bill is right, it has to be the case and I very much support it and the way that we go. It gives us the independence and sovereignty to do it. Likewise, we now have the sovereignty to develop, argue for and produce our own trade deals. So why are we not a great beacon of animal welfare and the environment as we negotiate these trade deals? We have in our manifesto a commitment both on animal welfare and the environment. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State for International Trade to have the armour of Parliament’s backing to say, “I can’t negotiate away that particular part of the deal with you because it is written down in law”?

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the frustration that hon. Members feel that, when it comes to trade deals, we are told at one time, “Well, it can be in that Bill,” and at another time, “It needs to be in that Bill”? Would it not have been helpful if the Department for International Trade had been here today?

[Neil Parish]

It would indeed. My hon. Friend is right. If we try to amend the Trade Bill, we get told, “That is not the place to put it.” If the Agriculture Bill is not the place to put it either, where is the place to put it? The place to put it is in this Parliament. I will very much support this, as do my hon. Friend and many Conservative Members. We want to negotiate very good trade deals, and not only with Australia, New Zealand and America. Do not forget that this is about not today and tomorrow, but probably several years down the road. What about when we start to do trade deals with Brazil? Brazil has burned down 2.5 million acres of rainforest this year and what do they do? They grow sugar beet and soya, they produce poultry intensively and they destroy the rainforest. When they have destroyed 2.5 million acres of rainforest every year, they will move on to another bit of land. They have destroyed the fertility of that land. They do not even farm the land in the right way. They destroy the environment and the land for farming and if we are not careful, that is exactly where we are going to take it.

Instead of that, we—the British—believe in animal welfare. We believe in the environment. All the signatories to the NFU petition agree on the way forward. So do the Government. I have every respect for the Government and the Minister. But, for goodness’ sake, get the backing of Parliament. Yes, we will get a certain amount of scrutiny of the trade deals when they are done, but the deal will be signed and then presented before Parliament. There will then be the option of objecting to it, or voting it through.

That is why the work has to be done. We do not need the whole Trade and Agriculture Commission; we could have a slimmed down version that could consider every individual deal over the years, as we sign it, to ensure that we do not trade away those standards, and that we improve standards across the world—that we raise the standards of animal welfare and the environment. Surely that is laudable. All of us can support that, irrespective of our political party. I urge the Government: instead of saying, “We’ve got the power. We can vote it down and stop those rebels whatever happens”, we want something really positive from the Government. I support the Minister very much in what she is doing, but let us get this measure in, so that we can actually support trade and trade deals in the future.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made a passionate speech.

I rise principally to speak in support of amendment 16, although I will have a few words to say about the missing amendment 18. Amendments such as Lords amendments 9 on a national food strategy, and 11 on pesticides, are clearly devolved matters and properly decided by our Government in Scotland. However, in solidarity with our friends in England, I wish to express disappointment that this Government have chosen simply to strike all the amendments down, rather than to amend them and use them to improve the Bill. I cannot understand why they have not taken that opportunity. Regrettably, however, I think I am right in saying that very few—if any—Opposition amendments or new clauses were accepted by the Government throughout the course of the Bill, so perhaps I should not be so surprised.

I welcome Government amendments 10 to 15 and 20 to 29, which mean that the UK Government will have to gain the consent of the devolved authorities in further areas such as organics, but once again I contrast that approach with the bulldozing of devolved competences in the internal market Bill. I wonder if one hand of the Government is aware of what the other hand is up to.

There remains plenty to be worried about in the Bill, and the dismantling of England’s farm support system, to be replaced by some amorphous idea of payments for public goods, must rate high on that list. The issue that causes the most concern to food producers in Scotland, and to Scottish consumers, is that of food standards. The extra scrutiny measures that the Minister has announced are of course useful, but I look in vain for something with real teeth that can quell the very real concerns that we hear from all corners of the House.

One provision that has been inserted into the Bill will do something to address that gap and place the issue of food standards in the Bill, and we should keep that provision. Lords amendment 16 relates to clause 42 of the Bill, as it was bounced back here from over there, and it should be kept in the Bill. It is not perfect but it is serviceable and it offers some protection against what are sometimes appallingly poor standards of food production in other countries.

Shoppers have some idea of the quality of what they buy in the shops because of the regulations in place to ensure the quality of food from farm to shelf. Those regulations—those safeguards—will be dumped if this Government get their way. We know that because there have been plenty of opportunities to put protections and guarantees into legislation. This Bill, the Trade Bill, the withdrawal Bill and the internal market Bill have all been passed up by the Government, denied, done down and refused.

This Government sometimes seem hell-bent on reducing the quality of our food supplies and, frankly, it is not entirely clear why. Some have suggested that it is to secure a trade deal here or there, but that seems too high a price to pay. I am left considering only the possibility that they simply have not thought this through because the alternative explanation is that they intend to drive down food standards and consumer protections. Some say that that is because they have the wealth to ensure sufficient high-quality food for themselves and so give not a jot for the health and wellbeing of others. That, frankly, would seem a strange attitude for elected representatives to have. However, I see few other explanations for the refusal at least to replicate our existing food protections. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, promised us several times that UK food standards would not be undermined by future trade deals. Here is the best and very possibly the last opportunity for this DEFRA Secretary and his Minister to do something about it.

I must say a few words about the rather hamfisted use of parliamentary tactics by the Government to prevent debate and a vote on Lords amendment 18, which would require the Trade and Agriculture Commission to make a report on recommendations for policies to protect food standards, domestic production, the environment and animal welfare, and the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament. It has long been suspected that the Trade and Agriculture Commission was created so that the Government might evade the wrath of their Back Benchers and a likely defeat in this Chamber. Here was an opportunity to create a Trade and Agriculture Commission with some real purpose and strength, instead of leaving us with the weak sop to the Government’s MPs that it is currently. Instead of creating a commission that had the ability to overturn any decisions made by Governments that might threaten the viability of our farming and food and drink sectors, we have a body that is frankly nothing more than a poodle of the International Trade Department. It looks like yet another internal battle between the Department for International Trade and DEFRA has been comprehensively won, or lost, once again.

We in the SNP have repeatedly expressed concern about the body over its lack of any real teeth and the lack of regard for the devolved authorities. These proposals do not go far enough, or did not go far enough, as reports do not provide concrete protections or requirements for the Government to act, but they also do not reflect the reality of devolved competences, and we insist that the devolution settlement be considered and respected in any reports so produced. With all that said, the Tory Government are offering nothing more than empty words as a protection for food standards and a report by the Trade and Agriculture Commission would at least do more than that to protect food standards. However, as we see tonight, even that wee bit of protection has been blocked by the Government.

All Scottish MPs received a letter signed by dozens of farming, health, environmental and social justice organisations recently pleading with us to support higher food standards through these amendments—from the National Farmers Union Scotland, to Citizens Advice Scotland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland, the Leith Community Crops in Pots, Unite Scotland, Unison Scotland, the Trussell Trust and many, many more. The question for me is: will the Scottish Tories ignore them all?

I note from the most recent survey of Which? on the subject that some 95% of the respondents from Scotland who voted for the Conservatives in 2019 called for food standards to be maintained, with around three quarters of them saying that they were uneasy, first, because the UK Government had not entirely ruled out for good lifting the bans on chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef; and, secondly, because such bans could be lifted with a vote in Parliament. Again, I call on the Scottish Tories to do the right thing by all their constituents—to give them the protection that our citizens look to their elected representatives to provide and vote for this amendment to stay within the Bill. We challenged Scotland’s supine six to do the right thing by their constituents and by the people of Scotland at the time of the Trade Bill debates, but they meekly followed their Westminster leader through the Lobbies once again. Will they finally, this time, do their jobs and represent the interests of the people who elected them to this place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Farming and the future of the agriculture industry are subjects that I am incredibly passionate about. Before entering this place, I had been involved for my whole life in the farming sector, and I use this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is my view that for far too long our agriculture industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that the sector undoubtedly encompasses have been restrained and stifled by the workings of the common agricultural policy. Through the CAP, our agriculture industry has become less competitive through ill-thought-through subsidy schemes that have impeded productivity, stifled innovation and failed to protect the environment as much as we could have. Let me be clear: this is the fault not of the farmer, but of the system they have been constrained by. A change is required and this Bill goes a long way to shaking up the system and achieving that, which is great news.

I will use my time to talk about Lords amendment 16. This has rightly received much attention and I have given it immense thought as I want to ensure that our agriculture industry thrives and is truly sustainable long into the future. However, as we look to adopt new legislation, it is vital that we scrutinise the detail and the anticipated consequences.

Let us be clear about the current position: the Bill does not lower food safety standards. Of course, the amendment goes much further and obligates that any agri-environmental food import must be produced and processed under standards that are equivalent to the UK for animal health, plant health and environmental protection. We must ask ourselves: while the intentions are entirely laudable, in reality, what will the consequences be for the supply of food that we wish to import, such as the vast amounts of tea imported from Kenya, bananas from the Dominican Republic or coffee from Vietnam?

Let us take environmental standards, for example. If Vietnam and other developing countries, such as Ghana and Indonesia, that export coffee beans to the UK were expected to provide evidence that they meet UK carbon emissions targets, I can see that that would have a dramatic impact on the UK retail and hospitality sector, as I suspect that countries would not be able to meet such requirements. Equally, it would not make sense for the UK to require trading partners with certain climates and environmental conditions, which are very different from those here in the UK, to meet our specifications, such as the UK’s requirement for nitrate vulnerable zones, which are specifically adopted to UK conditions. It is vital that that level of detail must be explored and considered at this stage, to see whether it is practical to try to enforce this amendment to a domestic piece of legislation abroad and to see whether it is workable in law. I want to see a thriving agricultural sector.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend’s argument is that we must not put in a standard because we will stop imports from certain countries, so is he suggesting that we just go to a lower and lower common denominator to allow food in from anywhere? When we do a trade deal, we can write this into law. We could actually write this into law with all the least developed countries to give them preference in trade with us, rather than throwing out our trade to Brazil and Malaysia.

[Robbie Moore]

I believe that a totally protectionist approach is the wrong one for the success of our agricultural industry in the long term. We have a huge opportunity available to us. This amendment would constrain our agricultural food sector’s ability to grow, expand and meet the new export opportunities that will come from our country setting out on the world stage and negotiating new trade deals, which we should be bold and optimistic about for our UK farming sector—for example, expanding whisky exports to Canada, potato exports to Egypt and milk exports to Algeria. I am proud to say that British beef is back on US menus for the first time in more than 20 years, and that market opportunity needs to be explored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

Rightly or wrongly, it would become illegal, if we follow these rules, to bring anything from the EU that did not allow that into this country. My hon. Friend is right to raise that; it is wrong. Food labelling is the solution, and to have a grass-fed label that allows 49% of the feed to be grain is just not right.

We need to be an outwardly global, free trade-friendly but sensible country. These amendments are much more to do with stopping subsistence African farmers rather than Texan ranchers. It might surprise some of the supporters of these amendments to learn that we are already importing illegally produced food through the EU. Supermarkets sell Danish bacon—with English-sounding farm names, to fool customers—from pigs whose mothers are kept in sow stalls, which were banned in the UK in 1999, on the grounds of cruelty.

[Neil Parish]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that when we banned those sow stalls and tethers, Europe did not, and it decimated our pig industry in the meantime? Therefore, if we do not get the trade considerations right, we will trade away all our food production, like we have already.

[Bill Wiggin]

I do not get any extra minutes for that intervention. I ask Members also to think about our stocking density for chickens, which is 39 kg per square metre, as opposed to 42kg in the EU. German hop growers use chemicals that would not be allowed in this country, and apparently the French will give a derogation for neonicotinoids so that their farmers can produce oilseed rape. That is outrageous. Where are the objections to buying Danish bacon? Where are the people kicking off to protect our pig farmers? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is absolutely right: when we did the right thing, we were decimated.

I want us to achieve everything that my hon. Friend the Minister talked about. We should have proper food standards and better labelling. The people we should be putting our faith in are the consumers. They do not want hormone beef; they want to know that what they are buying is good, clean and proper, and they are grown up enough to make their own decisions.

There is room for everybody. We produce 61% of food eaten in this country and 75% of that which we are able to grow here. The remainder—more than £47 billion-worth—is all imported. We have the capacity to pay our farmers more, import from international markets without substitution for lower standards, and ensure that we produce the best and healthiest food at a cost-effective price.

The Prime Minister has called on us to find the inner, or thinner, hero inside us and shed those pounds. That is spot on. If we can lower the price of healthy food in this country, we could not only see our nation lose weight but address the need for food banks. With better food prices, innovation can progress in the agricultural sector, and we can have what we always wanted: farmers receiving public money for public goods.

I want the Minister to commit to ensuring that farm incomes grow on the back of the environmental land management scheme, and not be diminished. I want the Bill to allow us to protect the environment and produce food, while ensuring that our food producers’ incomes rise, consumers buy healthier food and the need for food banks goes. These amendments will not achieve those goals or what our great farmers, consumers, constituents and future trading partners want: prosperity and a better diet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

Enforcement is, of course, a matter for local police forces, but what we can do in this place is to make sure that the right laws are in place to give them the tools that they need to stamp out animal cruelty.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

There has been much laudable support for this and many good intentions, but since 2016, when we had the Select Committee report recommendation to bring in five-year maximum sentencing, each Government have decided they are going to do it and it is still not done. My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has put forward his Bill, so this is about making sure that the Government will support it and make time, in Government time, to get this through, because we must not prevaricate any longer. With a maximum six-month sentence, and only four months if someone pleads guilty, it is absolutely ridiculous that we cannot bring in stronger sentencing.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Neil Parish Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to very much welcome the Bill. In 2017, the previous Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee ran an inquiry on fisheries, focusing on the fisheries White Paper and the Fisheries Bill of 2018. The new Bill is largely the same and I welcome it because it takes back control of our fishing policy from the EU, which is something we have been trying to do for years. It will give Ministers and our devolved Administrations the power to decide fishing policy as an independent coastal state for the first time in more than 45 years.

If we implement the Bill and negotiate well with the EU and our other trade partners, fishing can be one of the great benefits of Brexit. In coastal communities such as mine in Devon, people write to me about the sell-out of our fishing communities in 1972, because it hurt their businesses and our towns and coastal communities. The Government are therefore right to drive a hard bargain on fisheries, because people really care about it. It is of social and economic importance to see the regeneration of our coastal communities after Brexit, and there is a huge benefit to catching more fish and then processing and eating it here.

Our fishing sector employs more than 25,000 people and around 18,000 work in the fish-processing industry. Most of our fisheries businesses are small family businesses, with more than 80% employing fewer than five people. These businesses are expecting a great boom from Brexit, so I hope Ministers are mindful; otherwise, perhaps they might be on the hook, too. There is great scope for growth under new fishing arrangements and I hope that UK negotiators will hold firm.

The UK has a very large fishing zone compared with many of our continental neighbours. Under the common fisheries policy, EU fishermen benefit hugely from reciprocal access to UK waters. In 2015, for example, EU vessels caught some 683,000 tonnes in UK waters, raising some £484 million in revenue, but UK vessels caught only 111,000 tonnes in EU member states’ waters, raising £114 million in revenue. That means that EU vessels benefit by a ratio of 6:1 under the common fisheries policy. It is time to put that right. We need to rebalance things and reduce EU vessels’ access to a more sustainable level. Of course, EU vessels will need to have fair access, but not at the same level as they have under the CFP. We need to get British fishing rights back.

If we grant access to EU vessels, we need to make sure that our fishing businesses can still sell into Europe as part of the deal. About 70% of fish and 85% of shellfish caught in the UK is exported to EU countries, but although we export most of the fish we catch, we import the same amount; between 70% and 80% of the seafood consumed in the UK is imported, with only about 30% of that coming from the EU. The fish we eat most comes from distant waters, not from UK waters. Cod, haddock, salmon, prawns and others are abundant in the northern waters between Norway and Greenland, and more than 80% of the cod and haddock we eat comes from those waters, so I hope that Ministers are also looking carefully at that. While negotiations with the EU are taking all the headlines, we need also to make sure that we have new deals in place with Norway, the Faroes and Greenland so that our businesses can access those waters.

On sustainability, we must remember that many fish stocks move between national waters and, because there is common access to them, they are at risk of being over-exploited. The Government are therefore right to put sustainability at the heart of the Bill. When we leave the common fisheries policy at the end of this year, we will have more control over our waters. That will be good for our environment but also for our local fishing industries and coastal communities, which will benefit from a greater cap, particularly for the under-10 metre fleet.

The Government are also wise to look at the Norway model for fishing. Norway has far greater control over its waters and acts quickly to shut down areas of over-fishing and to open up others. The Bill is a great opportunity to ensure that we can operate a more dynamic fisheries management system that can respond rapidly to changing circumstances and science.

The Bill is a significant opportunity to deliver a much needed revival for coastal communities and small-scale fishers, and I greatly welcome the direction of travel that DEFRA Ministers have set. It is also a great opportunity to put right the fact that we have discarded, over so many years, so many millions of tons of healthy fish. We have an opportunity now to make sure that we catch what we land, so that fishermen will target the fish that they can catch and sell, and we do not have that huge waste of resource in the future. The Bill is a great opportunity to realise a huge benefit from Brexit and to ensure not only that we catch more fish but that we and our coastal communities prosper from this extremely good legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Food insecurity is a great issue, especially with the covid virus. Evidence we are taking in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs shows that a lot of people are in need of good food. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the system of getting food straight from the farms to those who most need it, but can he extend it even more? I ask because after the pandemic and before the economy recovers properly people are going to need more and more food.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government have made available £16 million to partners such as FareShare to ensure that we can get food to thousands of food charities across the country to support those in need. In addition, we have been looking at other ways in which we can support those who are financially vulnerable at this difficult time.

Agriculture Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Thank you. I am now introducing a time limit of five minutes, and advise hon. Members speaking virtually to have a timing device visible.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Given covid-19, I want to pay my great tribute to all the health workers across the country, and also the food producers, farmers, deliverers and those who process the food to get it into our shops and to consumers. It has never been so important to have home production and good-quality food in this country. It is not only farmers and growers who want that; so do the supermarkets and other retailers and the consumers. We are all working together to deliver higher and higher standards, better welfare and better environmental conditions.

The whole raison d’être of the Bill is to move us in the direction of higher welfare and environmental standards, looking after our land and soils, holding back water and having better flood protection—all of this working together. But farming, and especially commercial farming, needs to be able to produce food and to do so competitively. As Government and Opposition Members have said, there has never been more of a need to deliver sustainable, good, affordable food in this country than there is today.

I very much support new clause 1 from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and, naturally, new clause 2, which is in my name and the names of the EFRA Committee members. This is about having equivalence of production on imported food, so that it is WTO-compliant, and it is very much about getting very good trade deals in future. I want to see British lamb and more cheese go into America. I want to see everything being exported to America, and I am very happy to have imports from America in a new trade deal, but they cannot undercut our present production methods and animal welfare.

I will say this clearly to the Americans: if we look at American poultry production, we see that they use chlorine wash for about 25% or 30% of that—for the lower end of their production, where the chickens are more densely populated and there are much poorer welfare and environmental conditions—to literally clean it up so that is safe to eat, and of course, in doing that, they reduce the cost of production, but they also reduce the welfare of that poultry. I would say clearly to the Secretary of State for International Trade that she should spend her time going out and dealing with a trade deal that has equivalence and making sure that we export our very important animal and environmental welfare. And I would say to the Americans, “Why don’t you upgrade your production? Why don’t you reduce the density and population of your chickens? Why do you not reduce the amount of antibiotics that you are using, and then you will produce better chicken not only for America: it can also come into this country?”

Let us not be frightened of putting clauses into the Bill that protect us, with the great environmental and welfare standards that we want the whole Bill to have, and that farmers want to have. I think we all accept that the common agricultural policy has not been a huge success. Therefore, we can devise a better Agriculture—and food—Bill, and that is what we have to remember: agriculture is about food, and it has never been more important than now to have high-quality food. If I get the opportunity, I will most definitely push new clause 2 to a Division and I will most definitely support new clause 1. There are also Opposition new clauses that I am also prepared to look at, because I think we have to make this Bill good. It is no good being told, “Don’t put it in the Agriculture Bill; put it in the Trade Bill.” When we try to put it in the Trade Bill, it will be out of scope. We are being led down the garden path—we really are —and it is time for us to stand up and be counted.

I want great trade deals. I am not a little Englander who will defend our agriculture against all imports—quite the reverse. I think competition is good, but on a level playing field that allows us to produce great food and allows our consumers to have great food, and makes sure that we deliver good agriculture and environment for the future.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]]

I would like to speak to amendments 23 to 25 and record my support for new clause 7. That I am speaking to these amendments should come as no surprise to the House since they are the contents of my Food Insecurity Bill.

Since 2017, I have been pleading with the Government to introduce a simple, cost-neutral measurement of food insecurity into the household surveys that they already conduct. Each time hunger is raised in this place, various Secretaries of State and Ministers have denigrated statistics from charities, researchers, food banks and colleagues, claiming that the figures are not robust enough or that the information is not reliable enough to inform Government policy. Denying the accuracy of the data or simply turning a blind eye allows them to pretend that the problem does not exist, but it does, and it is only by knowing the true scale of UK hunger that we can start to mitigate it.

When I introduced my Bill, the United Nations had estimated that 8 million people in the UK were food insecure—that is 8 million people who could not afford to eat and who did not know where their next meal was coming from. More than 2,000 food banks that we know of have become an embedded part of our welfare state and are the only port of call for those experiencing the harsh and unforgiving welfare state cultivated by this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent question. New schemes will be for all farmers, in all areas and for all types of landscape. At the moment, farmers can enter our new countryside stewardship agreements, which start from January 2021. Those who sign up to the improved scheme and who wish to enter the new environmental land management scheme will be able to leave their countryside stewardship agreements at agreed exit points, without penalty. Lots of farmers were concerned about that issue, but it is now clear that they can do that. Financial assistance under the environmental land management scheme will be available for all farmers and land managers, including lowland farmers in the country who undertake the eligible activities.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

9. When the Government plan to publish the national food strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As my hon. Friend is aware, Henry Dimbleby is leading an independent review of the food system to develop recommendations to shape a national food strategy. The review was launched in June 2019. A vision for the food system is scheduled for publication in the spring of this year, and the review’s final recommendations will be published over the winter. The Government will then respond to those within six months.

[Neil Parish]

In these moments of great crisis when we need food, there is no doubt that home-produced food is more important than ever. I would really love it if the food strategy incorporates how we are going to produce more home-produced food. Further to the question from the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), I am looking forward to the Secretary of State supporting the amendment from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to maintain high standards on food imports. Can that all be incorporated into the food strategy?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Events such as those we are experiencing now remind everyone that a critical component of our food security is healthy and vibrant domestic production, which is why we have committed in the Agriculture Bill to review our food security every five years. That will include a review of the health of the food supply chain and food production in this country.

Flooding

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

In 2007, my constituency was badly flooded: three people tragically lost their lives, many lost their water supplies, quite a lot lost electricity and many people were out of their homes for 12 months, living in caravans. It was a desperately difficult time. Since then, a lot of good work has been done in various parts of my constituency, which has certainly helped, but nevertheless we have been flooded many times since, including in the last week and last November.

I wish to highlight two particular things that I feel really should be done. The first is relatively simple: we should clear out ditches more regularly and maintain drains better than we are, and we ought to consider whether we should dredge all rivers, because I understand that that has helped enormously in some areas of the country where it is done. We ought to revisit that policy.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I have limited time, but I shall give way briefly.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for giving way. There is no doubt that the dredging of the River Parrett where it goes out to sea in Somerset has been very effective; I wonder whether the Severn needs the same improvements.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful for that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). Many of us in this House deeply miss Nic Dakin, but it was a real pleasure to hear her story about how she was forged in Scunthorpe. Like her, and like all of us in this House, we hope that Scunthorpe will continue to make steel for many years and generations to come.

I want to speak about Kirkstall and Burley in my constituency, which were devastated by floods on Boxing day in 2015. In the aftermath of those floods, we were promised by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), the Environment Secretary at the time, that Yorkshire would soon have

“one of the most resilient flood defence programmes in the country”,

and that Leeds would be given

“the right level of protection”

from floods. Well, more than four years after those words were uttered, we still do not have those things and still desperately need them. Phase 2 of the flood alleviation scheme for Leeds was cancelled in 2011, and we are still fighting to get it back. Although phase 1 has happened and protects Leeds city centre, Kirkstall and Burley are still as unprotected as they were on Boxing day 2015. We had a near miss with Storm Ciara and luckily avoided the floods that we experienced in 2015, but if the water in the River Aire had risen by just a few centimetres more, we would have been devastated in exactly the same way, because we still do not have the flood defences that we were promised and that we need. We remain £23 million short of the funding that we need in Leeds to build the second phase of the flood alleviation scheme. Some work is happening, and we welcome that. Only last week I visited Harden Moor in Bradford, where trees are being planted and leaky dams are being put in, but not, frankly, at the level needed to provide the protections that we need.

People in my constituency, and particularly businesses in my constituency, like those that other hon. Members have mentioned, are in fear every time there is a flood warning, and every time they see the river and the canal near to where we live rising, because they know that we are just as vulnerable as we were back then. Not only are we as vulnerable to the flooding but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, many people and businesses now do not have flood insurance, although not always for the same reasons that he mentioned. In this case, it is because that flood insurance is simply unaffordable, as now we have gone through floods the insurers will not insure at the same rates as they did previously. Yesterday evening, I spoke to a business owner and asked him what happened to his flood insurance after the floods of 2015, and he said that it almost trebled overnight. Many businesses in my community no longer have flood insurance because it would make their businesses unviable.

[Neil Parish]

Flood Re helps with residential property but not with small businesses. Somebody who is, say, running a guest house, and is very much classed as a business, cannot get that guarantee of assurance. We need to re-look at how Flood Re works. It works well for residential property but not for small businesses.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He and I, and the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) have today written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make exactly these points. Flood Re, although incredibly welcome, is of no use to small business owners who are particularly badly affected in my constituency. I know that the Government are reviewing the Flood Re scheme, but this is a matter of urgency now. Businesses did return to Kirkstall and Burley after the floods in 2015, but they might not return quite so quickly next time, because the flood premiums will go up again—and also, frankly, because they believed the promises in 2016 that the flood defences would be built. They have not been built, and I think that would change some of the business decisions. So, urgently, let us get the flood defences, but let us also ensure that businesses can get insurance.

Climate change is only going to make these matters worse and more pressing. We know that water levels are rising. We know that ice caps are melting. We know that our weather is becoming more unpredictable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) pointed out. So in future we will need to be better protected and better prepared for floods. That is all that people in Leeds are asking for. We are asking to be better protected and better prepared, because it is a case of when and not if we get flooding in Leeds again. We have done everything we can in Leeds to ensure that we get the flood defences we need. We now look to the Government to come up with that £23 million to ensure that we do level up the flood defence spending so that the people of Kirkstall and Burley get the flood defences we need. That can only happen if the Government deliver on their promises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

It is regular reading for the grandfather of Goole. The forthcoming proposed amendment to the Act may seem like a small one, to increase the height of the Leigh flood storage area, but it will protect many lives. The Leigh flood storage area is a vital piece of infrastructure on the River Medway, without which the town of Tonbridge would be constantly vulnerable. I urge those who are not familiar with it to visit, particularly now that the A21 is fixed. It helps to store water and protect our town, and we have seen it used many times in not only the past few weeks but the past few years, protecting thousands of homes.

The enlargement project comes with unqualified local support. In addition to Government funding, it is supported by Kent County Council. I pay tribute to the work that the county council has done and the council leader, Roger Gough, for his efforts. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, led well by Nicolas Heslop, has done extremely impressive work as well.

Local businesses have also chipped in and done their bit. As a Conservative Administration, we believe that people should contribute to their own protection, and that is exactly what many of these businesses are doing. One of the great successes of the Government intervention after the 2013 Christmas floods was the establishment of the Medway Flood Partnership, bringing together all the relevant organisations to develop a plan for flood relief on the Medway catchment area.

[Neil Parish]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I want to briefly pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who was then the floods Minister, but I now give way with great pleasure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to private sector investment in flood defences, the Treasury needs to be a bit more generous and give a bit more tax relief to ensure that we get more private money to help protect our properties and businesses?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is right. I would like to see VAT relief on private flood protection, which many people are forced to buy for their own homes. I hope the Chancellor will consider that for the coming Budget, but I suspect we may have missed that one.

I want to thank a few people who have made a huge difference. In our community, flood wardens have had a huge impact by not only ensuring that people are safe when a flood occurs but helping to clear culverts and report blocked drains, so that floods do not accumulate, and particularly surface water flooding. Carl Lewis in Tonbridge has led the way, and a small thank you should go to him. Other people around the area have agreed to allow private land to be used.

When I was driving from home into Tonbridge the other day, large areas of west Kent were covered by the Medway. However, in Tonbridge we have had issues this winter caused by management companies and house builders failing to look after residents. This is not a question about building on floodplains; these are buildings that are deliberately and expertly built on floodplains, with floodable garages underneath. They are specifically designed for the purpose, but those living in Riverbank House in Tonbridge were let down badly by Pembroke Property Management. Only now has the floodwater been pumped out of their car park following the flooding that occurred before Christmas. Pembroke had no plan to deal with the flooding and failed to ensure that there were working pumps in the car park, so cars remained submerged for weeks. I pay particular tribute to some of the local councillors, including Matthew Boughton, who made a huge noise in making sure that constituents and residents were properly represented.

In the absence of action from property management companies, we must look at ways to ensure that residents are protected and that they are not charged for services that should already be provided—none more so than those let down by Redrow at Waterside Reach. This building is only four years old and, as the name suggests, it was specifically built next to the river. So there is more that this Government can do and I look forward very much to the Government taking action and making sure that towns such as Tonbridge—deliberately built, by the Vikings, on the river—are able to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for whom I have the utmost respect. He speaks very clearly and succinctly, and with passion about this very important issue. First, I thank and congratulate the Opposition on bringing forward this debate about such an important matter. It is important that we talk about these issues across the House. I put on record my thanks to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its Ministers for their help and support through difficult times in recent weeks and months, as my constituency has been hit significantly by floods.

I would also like to echo comments by other hon. Members and thank the Environment Agency, which has delivered fantastic support on the ground. Specifically, I would like to mention a couple of folk in my area, Keith Ashcroft and Stewart Mounsey, who have been fantastic in their leadership of their teams. I thank the emergency services and councils for their fantastic work in these difficult times. Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank the volunteer groups who work so hard in these areas in difficult times. Volunteers work hand in hand with the emergency services and the Environment Agency to deliver fantastic support, so I put on record my thanks to volunteers across the UK and in Cumbria, in areas such as Appleby, Glenridding, Keswick and Cockermouth.

We have talked today about the impact of flooding across the UK, which is not insignificant. Many people have felt significant effects. Cumbria has been hit hard, as has Penrith and The Border, not least in 2015 but also in recent weeks in areas such as Appleby, Shap, Crosby, Rickerby, Warwick Bridge and Glenridding.

[Neil Parish]

I welcome my hon. Friend to Parliament and, with his veterinary experience, to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. This morning, we launched a cross-party inquiry into flooding across the whole country to try to ensure we build on our previous flood inquiries and deliver a better system in the future.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was delighted to be appointed to the Committee and it is very welcome that it is going ahead with that inquiry. It is important that we work across parties on these issues to deliver the best for the whole country.

Members have talked about the impact of flooding across the country on individual communities, not least the financial implications. Members also touched on indirect consequences, and one issue that I would particularly like to mention is the mental health of our constituents. These episodes are traumatic. There is also anxiety and stress for constituents who are waiting nervously, wondering whether it is going to happen to them. We underestimate the mental health implications of flooding for young people, as well as for old people. Kids have their schools closed and they then worry about their mums and dads, who are worried about whether their homes will be flooded. We can work together on a cross-party basis to deliver help on mental health.

Many Members have touched on how the funding system may need to be reviewed and I welcome those comments. We need to consider how flood schemes are funded, their criteria and what communities will be protected. I would like to bang the drum for volunteer groups. Many do not have a funding source. Some are charities and they have to apply for funding. I would like the Government to look at whether funding sources are applicable to volunteer groups, so that they can apply for and receive funding. I have seen what volunteer groups do on the ground and they need to be funded. They need not just short-term grants, but grants for up to three years to give them the continuity of support that they need. That is really important.

Members on both sides of the House have talked about insurance schemes. I welcome the review of the Flood Re scheme. The scheme is welcome, but I reiterate points that have been made about making small businesses eligible for it. That would be an important step forward. We must also look at the eligibility criteria in relation to how recently homes have been built.

Finally, I would like to talk a little bit about uptake and flood resilience at an individual household level, and what measures the Government can take to encourage people to make their properties more resilient. They could not only encourage, but perhaps incentivise and even enforce, landlords to introduce flood protection schemes in their premises, especially where those landlords do not occupy the buildings and it is tenants who are vulnerable. If not every premises in a bank of houses is protected, the water will get in, and I would like people to think about that.

I again congratulate the Opposition on bringing forward the debate. Obviously there is an element of politics to it, but I have been reassured this afternoon that there is a lot of cross-party consensus about these important issues. It is important that we try to work together on that basis to deliver the best for the people of the United Kingdom.

Environment Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on the Second Reading of the Environment Bill. I am pleased that the Government have reintroduced the Bill and I am also pleased that there is a degree of co-operation with the Opposition. It is important that we get the Bill absolutely right.

In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the previous Bill, and I am pleased that the legislation has moved towards some of our recommendations. For example, I welcome the fact that the Government will set a multi-annual budget for the Office for Environmental Protection and have included climate change within its remit. We just need to make sure that there is enough money for the OEP to run properly.

I wish to make three points about how the Bill can be improved. First, concerns have been expressed that in some areas, such as target setting, the Bill might allow a weakening of standards—for example, on air quality. I welcome the plan to set a target for particulate matter, but it is planned only for 2022, and we do not know how ambitious the target might be. At this early stage, I urge the Government to set an example and match the World Health Organisation guidelines for dangerous emissions such as particulate matter. The British Heart Foundation estimates that the number of heart attacks and stroke deaths linked to air pollution could exceed 160,000 by 2030, unless action is taken. DEFRA has already carried out a study that shows that it can achieve World Health Organisation standards of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, so I urge the Government to set that target. Let us put that target into law now and use the Bill to improve human health as well as our natural environment.

Secondly, it is vital that we set up the Office for Environmental Protection now that we are outside the EU; however, it needs to be independent of Government and have the teeth to bite. The OEP will not be independent if it is constantly worrying about having its budgets cut, so will the Government commit to a multi-annual budget settlement, the enshrinement in law of which I would welcome?

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I think we all agree that we certainly do not want an OEP that is a toothless tiger; we want one that can react to and govern the climate and nature emergency in which we find ourselves. We need clarity as to whether the OEP will be set up, particularly in England and Northern Ireland, as of 1 January 2021.

[Neil Parish]

Naturally, there is the matter of how the OEP works with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, but I agree that it needs to have those powers. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have listened to the hon. Lady’s intervention.

The appointments process in the setting up of the OEP should follow the Office for Budget Responsibility model, in which the Treasury Committee can veto the Chancellor’s choice. I am sure that my great friend the Secretary of State would not mind giving away some of his new fiefdom to the EFRA Committee, but we will wait and see. I offer that to him—or perhaps he might offer it to me.

My final point on the OEP is that my Committee concluded that judicial review is not the most appropriate enforcement mechanism for environmental cases because it focuses on process rather than outcomes and leaves the decision making to the lawyers. That is a really important point. I welcome the tribunal model in the Bill, because I hope that it will allow environmental specialists to have a role. We need practical solutions for when the Government are in breach—such as we have with air-pollution plans—rather than lawyers and going through process all the time. We really want to make sure that we get the experts in place.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend believe it is necessary to make sure that there is a time limit for the investigations that the OEP might undertake, so that we can see a speedy reaction to any issues that may arise?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We do not want to waste years in the courts; these things have to be done quickly. We need practical solutions for when the Government are in breach, just as we have with air pollution plans. I am still concerned that the environmental review outlined in the Bill is just a judicial review by another name. We have a great opportunity to build on our strong commitment to the environment. We all want to leave the environment in a better place than we found it. Will the Secretary of State look again at some of our Select Committee proposals, because the Bill can still be strengthened in many areas? One final point on the OEP is that the judicial review is not the most appropriate enforcement mechanism for environmental cases. We therefore need a more practical solution.

Finally, I ask the Government, as we have made a commitment to improve the environment, to look not only at the Environment Bill, but at the Agriculture Bill and the Fishing Bill, because they all fit together. As yet another round of flooding seems likely in the future, the Environment Bill will be important, as will be the Agriculture Bill. Fitting the two together with new land management projects will be a very good way of making sure that we can deliver a catchment-area basis for flooding. We can also improve our environment and work with the water companies on holding more water and on making sure that the reservoirs do not overflow. We can also look at the rewetting of peatland. All of those things can be done, but they must be linked with the Environment Bill.

Finally—I am sure that this is in the minds of Ministers and the Secretary of State—we must ensure that we join up the Environment Bill with the Agriculture and Fishing Bills, and also make sure that, as we drive towards a better environment, we do so across the whole of Government. This cannot just be done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because things such as delivering on air quality can only be achieved across Government.

I look forward to the Bill being read a Second time. It is taking us in the right direction, but let us also look at the independence of the OEP. We also need to make sure that tribunals deal not just with legal matters, but with environmental matters. With that, I very much welcome the Second Reading of this Bill.

Flooding

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I remind the House that, as we said in the last statement, statements are followed by questions, not speeches. We must have short questions; it will not harm the Minister or the Chair if we have long questions and speeches, but it will harm the people who do not get a chance to be called, so I ask for some courtesy and brevity.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his new post; it is well deserved.

Flooding is going on and it comes very suddenly, so we will have to manage it in the future. Some rivers need to be slowed down, and for some we need to increase the flow as they get to the sea.

With Flood Re, there is a cut-off date of 2008. Many people who bought houses after 2008 cannot necessarily get insurance. It is time that we looked at that again, because Flood Re has worked but many people cannot actually get access to it.

[George Eustice]

I am conscious of the point that my hon. Friend makes, and indeed that was made to me by residents when I visited York with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) at the weekend. For houses built in recent years, we have known about potential flood risk, and that should have been factored in in the planning system. So it would be rather extraordinary for there to be modern-built houses where the risk is so high that they cannot get insurance.