Avian Influenza

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

To be clear, the rules had not changed on 1 October. They changed last week and we backdated the changes to 1 October, so the kick-in moment for compensation for farmers who sadly lost their flocks after 1 October moved slightly backward. I can write to the hon. Member directly setting out the advice APHA is giving farmers on a sheet of paper so that he can familiarise himself with it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today and for responding to the questions.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Accounts and audit—

“(1) The Authority must keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts and must prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts.

(2) The annual statement of accounts must comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, as to the information to be contained in the statement, the way in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.

(3) Not later than five months after the end of an accounting year, the Authority must send a copy of the statement of accounts for that year to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on every statement of accounts received by him under subsection (3) above and must lay a copy of the statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.

(6) In this section “accounting year” means the period beginning with the day when the Authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.”

New clause 3—Reports to Secretary of State—

“(1) The Authority must prepare and send to the Secretary of State an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of the period of twelve months for which it is prepared.

(2) A report prepared under this section for any period must deal with the activities of the Authority in the period and the activities the Authority proposes to undertake in the succeeding period of twelve months.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every report received by him under this section.”

New clause 4—General functions of the Authority—

“(1) The Authority must—

(a) keep under review information about the use of genetic technology in plants and animals and any subsequent development of genetic technology and advise the Secretary of State about those matters,

(b) publicise the services provided to the public by the Authority or provided in pursuance of release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act,

(c) provide, to such extent as it considers appropriate, a code of practice, advice and information for persons to whom release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act apply,

(d) maintain a statement of the general principles which it considers should be followed—

(i) in the carrying-on of activities governed by this Act, and

(ii) in the carrying-out of its functions in relation to such activities,

(e) promote, in relation to activities governed by this Act, compliance with—

(i) requirements imposed by or under this Act, and

(ii) the Authority’s code of practice,

(f) perform such other functions as may be specified in regulations.

(2) The Authority may, if it thinks fit, charge a fee for any advice provided under subsection (1)(c).”

New clause 5—Duties in relation to carrying out its functions—

(1) The Authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically.

(2) In carrying out its functions, the Authority must, so far as relevant, have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed).”

New clause 6—Power to delegate and establish committees—

“(1) The Authority may delegate a function to a committee, to a member or to staff.

(2) The Authority may establish such committees or sub-committees as it thinks fit (whether to advise the Authority or to exercise a function delegated to it by the Authority).

(3) The members of the committees or sub-committees may include persons who are not members of the Authority.

(4) Subsection (1) has effect subject to any enactment requiring a decision to be taken by members of the Authority or by a committee consisting of members of the Authority.”

New clause 7—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred organisms—

“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny.

(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.

(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).

(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult representatives of—

(i) consumers,

(ii) citizens and civil society,

(iii) food producers,

(iv) suppliers,

(v) retailers,

(vi) growers and farmers,

(vii) the organic sector,

(viii) other persons likely to be affected by the regulations, and

(ix) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency on the information to be required to be provided on labelling.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the labelling of precision bred organisms and food and feed products made from them and to consult with named stakeholders before doing so.

New clause 8—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred animals—

“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny.

(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.

(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

New clause 9—Power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms—

“(1) Schedule 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 11 insert—

‘Marketing of precision bred organisms

11A The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any Act of the Scottish Parliament, or any subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of such an Act, relating to the marketing of—

(a) precision bred organisms, or

(b) food or feed produced from precision bred organisms.’.”

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out

“or a precision bred animal”.

This amendment removes animals from the scope of the Bill.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) But for the purposes of this Act an organism is not “precision bred” if any feature of its genome results from any technique or process which involves the insertion of exogenous genetic material, whether or not such material is subsequently removed.”

This amendment would exclude the use of exogenous genetic material in the creation of precision bred organisms.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(c) the organism has been developed for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes—

(i) producing food in a way that protects or enhances a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;

(ii) growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;

(iii) producing food in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;

(iv) protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals;

(v) conserving native animals or genetic resources relating to any such animal;

(vi) protecting or improving the health of plants;

(vii) reducing the use of pesticides and artificial fertiliser;

(viii) conserving plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant;

(ix) protecting or improving the quality of soil;

(x) supporting or improving human health and well-being;

(xi) supporting or improving the sustainable use of resources.”

This amendment would require that a precision bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit, if it is to be released into the environment.

Amendment 4, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

“(za) that the precision bred traits will not have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny,

(zb) that the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny are not likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity,

(zc) that the precision bred traits will not facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are crowded, stressful or otherwise likely to have an adverse effect on animal welfare,

(zd) that the objective of the precision bred traits could not reasonably have been achieved by means that do not involve modification of the genome of the animal.”

The amendment requires a range of factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a precision bred animal marketing authorisation.

Amendment 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

“(za) that the scientific evidence does not indicate that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny, and if so”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a precision bred animal marketing authorisation if the scientific evidence indicated that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny.

Amendment 6, in clause 26, page 16, line 29, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to regulate the placing on the market in England of food and feed produced from precision bred organisms.

Amendment 7, page 16, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the marketing of food or feed produced from a precision bred organism on the market in England except in accordance with a marketing authorisation, and imposing requirements for the purpose of securing traceability.

Amendment 8, page 16, line 36, after “traceability”, insert “through supply chain auditing”.

This amendment makes supply chain auditing the method of securing traceability in relation to food or feed produced from precision bred organisms that is placed on the market in England.

Amendment 9, page 17, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment requires the prescribing of requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Secretary of State to issue a food and feed marketing authorisation in relation to a precision bred organism.

Amendment 10, page 17, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment prescribes which requirements must be satisfied in order for the Secretary of State to issue a food and feed marketing authorisation in relation to a precision bred organism.

Amendment 5, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—

“(7) No regulations may be made under this Act unless—

(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament under section 18(6) of the Environment Act 2021, and

(b) section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 is in force.

(8) Regulations under this Act must be made in accordance with—

(a) the environmental principles set out in section 17(5) of the Environment Act 2021, and

(b) Article 391 (Non-regression from levels of protection) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, done at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”

This amendment would prevent the exercise of any powers granted by the Bill until the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.

Amendment 13, in clause 48, page 30, line 20, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations may not be made under or by virtue of this section unless a common framework agreement relating to the release and marketing of, and risk assessments relating to, precision bred plants and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals, has been agreed between a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.

(5B) “Common framework agreement” has the meaning given by section 10(4) of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.”

This amendment would prevent the operative parts of this Bill coming into force until a common framework agreement on the regulation of precision breeding had been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.

New schedule 1—The Authority: Supplementary Provisions—

“Status and capacity

1 The Authority is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown; and its property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.

2 The Authority has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge, except the power to borrow money.

Expenses

3 The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay the Authority out of money provided by Parliament such sums as he thinks fit towards its expenses.

Appointment of members

4 (1) All the members of the Authority (including the chairman and deputy chairman who are to be appointed as such) are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) The following persons are disqualified for being appointed as chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority—

(a) any person who is, or has been, concerned with the creation, release or marketing of plant or animal organisms, gametes or embryos created using genetic technology, and

(b) any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving such creation, release or marketing, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.

(3) The Secretary of State must secure that at least one-third but fewer than half of the other members of the Authority fall within sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b), and that at least one member falls within each of paragraphs (a) and (b).

5 (1) A person (“P”) is disqualified for being appointed as chairman, deputy chairman, or as any other member of the Authority if—

(a) P is the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order,

(b) in the last five years P has been convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man of an offence and has had a qualifying sentence passed on P.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), the date of conviction is to be taken to be the ordinary date on which the period allowed for making an appeal or application expires or, if an appeal or application is made, the date on which the appeal or application is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails by reason of its non-prosecution.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), the reference to a qualifying sentence is to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than three months (whether suspended or not) without the option of a fine.

Tenure of office

6 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 7, a person holds and vacates office as a member of the Authority in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

(2) A person may not be appointed as a member of the Authority for more than three years at a time.

(3) A member may at any time resign his office by giving notice to the Secretary of State.

(4) A person who ceases to be a member of the Authority is eligible for re-appointment (whether or not in the same capacity).

(5) A person holding office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority is to cease to hold that office if the person becomes disqualified for appointment to it.

(6) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member of the Authority—

(a) has been absent from meetings of the Authority for six consecutive months or longer without the permission of the Authority, or

(b) is unable or unfit to discharge the person's functions as chairman, deputy chairman or other member,

the Secretary of State may remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member.

(7) The Secretary of State may suspend a member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority if it appears to him that one of the conditions in paragraph (6) is or may be satisfied in relation to the member.

7 (1) This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State decides to suspend a member under paragraph 6(7).

(2) The Secretary of State must give notice to the member of the decision and the suspension takes effect on receipt by the member of the notice.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) is treated as being received by the member—

(a) in a case where it is delivered in person or left at the member's proper address, at the time at which it is delivered or left;

(b) in a case where it is sent by post to the member at that address, on the third day after the day on which it was posted.

(4) The initial period of suspension must not exceed 6 months.

(5) The Secretary of State may review the member's suspension at any time.

(6) The Secretary of State must review the member's suspension if requested in writing by the member to do so, but need not carry out a review less than 3 months after the beginning of the initial period of suspension.

(7) Following a review the Secretary of State may—

(a) revoke the suspension, or

(b) suspend the member for another period of not more than 6 months from the expiry of the current period.

(8) The Secretary of State must revoke the suspension if at any time—

(a) he decides that neither of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 5(5) is satisfied, or

(b) he decides that either of those conditions is satisfied but does not remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority.

Disqualification of members of Authority for House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly

8 In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

“The Genetic Technology Authority”.

Remuneration and pensions of members

9 (1) The Authority may—

(a) pay to the chairman such remuneration, and

(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of the chairman or any other member such pensions, allowances, fees, expenses or gratuities,

as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.

(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Authority otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation, the Authority may make to him a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

Staff

10 (1) The Authority may appoint such employees as it thinks fit, upon such terms and conditions as the Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

(2) The Authority must secure that any employee whose function is, or whose functions include, the inspection of premises is of such character, and is so qualified by training and experience, as to be a suitable person to perform that function.

(3) The Authority must, as regards such of its employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.

(4) If an employee of the Authority—

(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and

(b) becomes a member of the Authority,

he may, if the Secretary of State so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if his service as a member of the Authority were service as employee of the Authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 7 above.

Proceedings

11 (1) Subject to any provision of this Act, the Authority may regulate its own proceedings, and make such arrangements as it thinks appropriate for the discharge of its functions.

(2) The Authority may pay to the members of any committee or sub-committee such fees and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

12 (1) A member of the Authority who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a release notification or marketing authorisation under this Act must, as soon as possible after the relevant circumstances have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest to the Authority.

(2) Any disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) above must be recorded by the Authority.

(3) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be determined by the Authority under paragraph 9(1) above, the member must not participate after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision of the Authority with respect to the release notification or marketing authorisation, and if he does so the deliberation or decision is of no effect.

13 The validity of any proceedings of the Authority, or of any committee or sub-committee, is not affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member.

Instruments

14 The fixing of the seal of the Authority must be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority or some other member of the Authority authorised by the Authority to act for that purpose.

15 A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Authority, or to be signed on the Authority’s behalf, may be received in evidence and is deemed to be so executed or signed unless the contrary is proved.

Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner

16 The Authority is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner and accordingly, in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the authorities subject to investigation under that Act), the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

“Genetic Technology Authority”.”

Amendment 2, in title, line 2, leave out

“and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals”

and insert

“, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants”.

This amendment, which is contingent on Amendment 1, would change the long title to reflect the removal of animals from the scope of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This Bill is now on its third Secretary of State, and I think the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), is the fourth Minister to speak to it.

I welcome back the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who took the Environment Act 2021 through Committee. She will be delighted to know that I will never cease to remind her that the Government’s 25-year environment plan was supposed to be for 25 years, not to take 25 years.

On Friday, we once again saw why the Conservatives cannot be trusted on the environment. They are breaking their own law by failing to come up with critical air, water and biodiversity targets on time. On the same day, the Prime Minister gave up on the UK’s leadership role on climate change by ducking COP27.

When the Government bring forward such a vague, thin Bill, asking the country to trust them to get the secondary legislation right, they can hardly be surprised that people are sceptical, and we are. Their failure fails Britain, and we all deserve better. This is an important Bill that, with the right regulatory safeguards, will reassure the public and provide the right environment for the research and investment we all want to see. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that good regulation is the key to both innovation and investor confidence.

This Bill concerns our food. After 12 years of Conservative government, people are fighting to keep their head above water against the rising tide of inflation, which is even higher for essentials such as food. It is no exaggeration to say that people are at breaking point, and the fears for this winter are very real. Despite the possible gains that science and innovation might bring, this Bill does not bring urgent relief to families across the country, but it is an important step in enabling scientific advancements with the potential to deliver huge benefits by helping us to produce our food more efficiently and sustainably.

Labour Members are enthusiasts for science and innovation, which can help to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system, while addressing the environmental, health, economic and social harms that the modern system has unfortunately caused. These are the challenges that Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set out to tackle, but the Government have, of course, completely failed to engage with it seriously.

However, alongside the challenges, there are opportunities. The UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow. Even though they rejected them in Committee, there is still time for the Government to accept the improvements that we and many stakeholders believe are necessary to achieve that goal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are many new technologies out there that we want to embrace and give the opportunity to come forward, albeit in a regulated format so that we can have confidence in our food systems, and that is the exact process that the Bill seeks to correct.

We do not label food products that have been produced through traditional techniques such as chemical mutagenesis, and we do not label foods as “novel” because precision bred products are indistinguishable from their traditionally bred counterparts. It would not be appropriate to require labelling to indicate the use of precision breeding in the production of food or feed. That view is shared internationally; many of our partners across the world, such as Canada, the US and Japan, do not require labelling for precision bred products.

The Food Standards Agency is developing a new authorisation process to ensure that any food or feed product will only go on sale if it is judged to present no risk to health, does not mislead consumers, and does not have lower nutritional value than its traditionally bred counterparts. In order to ensure transparency, the Bill enables regulations to make a public register through which information about precision bred food and feed products can be assessed by consumers.

I do not know whether it is appropriate to speak to other amendments now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is up to you, but you will have an opportunity to speak again at the end of the debate.

[Mark Spencer]

I think I will leave it there and speak to other amendments at the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I wrong in thinking that Third Reading is about what is actually in the Bill, rather than what is not? The shadow Minister seems to be referring to what is not in the Bill. My understanding was that on Third Reading we are supposed to talk about what is actually in the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I must say that the hon. Lady does seem to be making rather an extensive speech, but I am sure she will be coming to her point shortly.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; yes, of course.

I want to acknowledge all the animal welfare organisations that have expressed their concern—indeed, the RSPCA says in its brief that it is “incredibly concerned”. I say to them and all those following the passage of the Bill, now that it is out of Committee, that we require stronger animal safeguards.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for leading on the Bill and to the folks in his team—Milly, George and Jenna—who have worked on it. I thank Rob Wakely and Adam Jogee, who have worked to support me too. I also thank the officials in this House and in the Department for their work on this important Bill. As it now moves on, we on the Labour Benches wish it well and hope that it will be strengthened and given the detail that it so desperately needs.

National Food Strategy and Food Security

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

That could produce quite a lot of ketchup. New technologies in harvesting and production will assist those industries as we move forward. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be here to support the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill as it passes through the House on Monday.

In the eight minutes that I have been allowed, it has not been possible to answer all the questions of Back Benchers. I think there were 11 speakers, which would have given me 40 seconds to respond to each contribution. If there are comments or questions that I have missed, however, I would be more than happy to write to hon. Members; I understand that this is a topic of great interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Food has rarely been as high on the Government’s agenda. It is a critical issue and the Government are prioritising it accordingly. We have already seen the high resilience of our food supply chains, but my Department will continue to work closely with the industry to address any evolving issues. We will prepare for the future by investing in research and innovation. Our farming reforms will help to support farmers to maintain higher levels of food production, and we will protect the environment at the same time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Minister’s speech prompts me to heap praise on the great farmers of the Ribble Valley. We have a lot of stone walls there too.

[Esther McVey]

I want to thank all Members in the House for coming here today and taking part in this debate on food security and the national food strategy. It has been wide-ranging and timely, there has been much consensus across the House and it has been highly constructive. It has only been possible because of the hard work of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) in making sure so many people were here.

A lot of Members, including the hon. Member for Swansea East and the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), focused on food poverty, and securing food for children at school and families right across the country. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) wanted support for her Healthy Start scheme (take-up) Bill, which is coming forward. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) focused on free school meals and how we can help those most in need.

Looking for solutions and moving forward, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) also focused on the cost of living and food price increases, but also on how we are going to grow more in this country and utilise our land more to bring prices down. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about partnerships, with universities, businesses and farmers coming together to get healthier crops, again so that we can bring food prices down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) had a close eye on food waste and what we can do there. I want to take a moment to talk about my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who talked about affordability, healthy options and the sacrifices people are making to feed the family. Most importantly, she has a food summit coming up on 4 November, and Henry Dimbleby will be there to open it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) focused on the future technology of food—a passion I share—as well as sustainable proteins and plant-based protein alternatives to meat. That is something this country does very well, and it is an expertise we should really push and drive forward to help our country, but also other parts of the world.

I cannot forget the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who spoke so passionately about his fish farmers, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), who talked about exposing the geopolitical shocks that we have suffered.

I want to thank the Minister, who is knowledgeable in this matter—he has spent his life in this area—but I want him to know that there will be constant pressure coming from all Members of this House on food security and on looking at what we need to do to make sure we have it. I again thank all Members for taking part in this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Just for accuracy, the right hon. Lady referenced the hon. Member for Swansea East, but did she mean the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies)?

[Esther McVey]

Yes.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to correct my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), but she referred to my old constituency of Cirencester and Tewkesbury. It is of course now The Cotswolds.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Wonderful—two corrections for Hansard.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises that food security is a major concern to the British public and that the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, the cost of living crisis and the conflict in Ukraine has made UK food security more important than ever before; further recognises the strain on the farming sector due to rising farming and energy costs; supports the Government’s ambition to produce a National Food Strategy white paper and recognises the urgent need for its publication; notes that the UK food system needs to become more sustainable; and calls on the Government to recognise and promote alternative proteins in the National Food Strategy, invest in homegrown opportunities for food innovation, back British businesses and help future-proof British farming.

Dog Daycare: Urban Areas

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Scott Mann]

I should be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and representatives of her businesses at the Department—if I am still in place for the next few hours, which I very much hope I shall be. I am keen to open up this discussion, because I think there might be something we can do here.

The guidance for the licensing regime is published on gov.uk, allowing prospective and existing licence holders full access to the information.

Let me now turn to the issue at the centre of the debate: the space required for dogs in daycare settings. The 2018 regulations state that dogs should be provided with a suitable environment. As I mentioned earlier, the regulations are supported by guidance from the Secretary of State, to which local authorities are required to have regard. The guidance states that when welfare standards are not being met, inspectors should take several factors into account. For instance—as the hon. Lady mentioned—each dog must have 6 square metres of space, which can include inside and outside space.

It may not surprise Members to learn that there are numerous business models in dog daycare centres. The welfare needs of an individual dog do not change on the basis of location, but the way in which they are met may vary.

In all settings, the primary licensing objective is to ensure that the dog’s welfare needs are met. Given the diversity of the sector, making a quick change to that guidance without consulting more widely may well resolve one problem but create others. Prior to making any change to the guidance, we need to consider carefully that risk and any impact on the animal welfare standards that I mentioned earlier. We would also need to consider any proposed change to the guidance for dog daycare centres, alongside similar guidance for other licensable activities involving dogs, to ensure parity of provision and consistency of standards.

I also understand that there are some concerns about dog daycare centre providers operating outside urban areas, where there is more space. I have received correspondence suggesting that dogs are travelling for significant periods to be taken to those places, as the hon. Lady rightly said. Animals’ transportation needs must be met—people must avoid causing them pain, suffering or distress—and transportation must fully comply with legal requirements to protect their welfare, including the provision of sufficient space, while journey time should be minimised. We take potential breaches of animal welfare legislation seriously, and advise that any concerns should be reported to the relevant local authority.

In February this year, we published an update to the guidance, largely to bring it in line with modern publication standards. After publication, a concern was raised regarding dog daycare. Working with the sector, we took steps to address the issue earlier in 2022. We were also clear with all involved that we would also consider the issue of space in the 2018 regulations.

The core purpose of the review is to assess the current operation of the 2018 regulations against their original impact assessment and policy intent, and to make recommendations on whether to retain, repeal or replace them. We are always seeking to learn from the implementation of legislation, and we feel that the review is also an appropriate time to re-examine the standards and the associated guidance, and to consider any changes.

I can confirm that DEFRA has begun the review process and that, as part of the review, my officials are proactively working with partners, including local authorities, businesses, and animal welfare organisations, to collate data that can provide a picture of licensed and unlicensed activities involving animals in the UK. I can confirm that Islington dog services and other urban dog daycare centres that have co-signed letters will be included in those submissions. As I have said, I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents.

Given the aforementioned need to consider the space needed by dog daycare centres, and by all licensed dog activities, the best route is to allow for the review to be completed before taking any further steps to address the guidance. However, we recognise that some businesses may not be able to wait that long because of their impending licence renewals. In light of all those factors, I will commit my officials to finding an interim solution for the space issue that protects the welfare of dogs in daycare settings, but which tries to reduce the impact on the urban businesses. We recognise the high demand for dog daycare in urban areas such as London, and we recognise and consider the issue of space across licensable dog activities.

The Government recognise the important role that responsible dog daycare centres play in caring for our pets. Their services not only ensure the welfare of dogs and afford them the opportunity to socialise, but allow the owners to go to work—we are very supportive of that. I hope that all present are reassured that the Government have heard of the difficulties in urban dog daycare centres and are committed to taking steps to address some of the challenges they face.

In the meantime, local authorities should be the point of inquiry about the application of the regime. If a licence holder is unhappy about the way a local authority handles an inquiry, they can report the matter to the chief executive officer of the local authority or, further still, to the local government and social care ombudsman.

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate about.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If there is not a pub called “The Hairy Hound”, there should be.

Question put and agreed to.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great work she does on biodiversity and as a swift champion. I will add that to my list of champions in the House. We know that puffins are projected to decline across Britain and Ireland by up to 90% within 30 years, and they are among 14 seabird species regarded as being at risk of negative climate change impacts. The shadow Minister for the natural environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West recently visited RSPB Bempton Cliffs, renowned for its puffins, but was not able to find a single one.

Ministers, notably Lord Goldsmith, often pat themselves on the back claiming they are doing all they can to advance the environmental agenda, but the fact of the matter is that our nature teeters on a cliff edge. I hope when the new Prime Minister takes office on 6 September that she or he will set out clearly how they will pull nature back from the brink. Under this caretaker Prime Minister, we all see a Tory Government consistently making the wrong choices, failing to engage with stake- holders properly, delaying action and ducking the urgent challenges facing us all.

Rather than setting the international agenda on biodiversity and leading the debate, the Budget last year—delivered as world leaders began to arrive for COP26—did not even mention climate change. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) found time to give a tax break for domestic flights and fell woefully short on the investment needed to deliver green jobs and a fair transition. It does not bode well for how he would approach the top job.

The Conservatives’ Environment Act 2021, which was well known as the “missing in action” Bill as it worked its way through the House, set a target on species abundance, and the Minister will recall that DEFRA Ministers were forced to concede that action was needed. Sadly, they only went as far as promising to halt the decline in species by 2030. Just halting the decline is not good enough—our ambition should be nature-positive here at home and in our work with colleagues on the world stage through COP15.

In 2020, the Government managed to deliver less than half their target of 5,000 hectares of new trees in England, and we had empty words from Lord Goldsmith that they would do better. The planned spending on tree planting is dwarfed by subsidies to Drax to ship and burn wood pellets from around the world, particularly from the US, with a lack of due diligence to make sure it is not from virgin forest. Meanwhile, the Government are doing far too little to protect the trees we do have. Deforestation is increasing across the planet and our consumption in Britain is driving deforestation abroad, which impacts here and across the world. Here, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central for his dogged tree-planting over the past 30 years.

In the Environment Act 2021, the Government’s due diligence measures cover only illegal deforestation. Why are we agreeing trade deals with countries such as Brazil, Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia while they continue to destroy rainforests? Just yesterday, we saw reports that deforestation of the Amazon is at its highest level for six years. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell highlighted that in his speech earlier. We must remember that human rights are always threatened when rainforest deforestation happens, and the best stewards of those rainforests are the indigenous people who have cared for them for thousands of years and for whom they are home. Funding men with guns to guard empty rainforest is not a sustainable or ethical policy, but sadly it appears to be one that this Prime Minister and DEFRA have pursued up until now.

Action has been inadequate across DEFRA policy for far too long. Water companies have continued to be allowed to pump sewage into rivers, and that has only hastened the decline of endangered species. After the Government finally got an ivory ban on the statute book in 2018, their dither and delay meant that it did not actually come into force until years after many other countries had acted. They have failed to deliver promised wildlife protection legislation to ban trophy hunting and fur imports. Last week I had a very good meeting with former President of Botswana Ian Khama, who, although out of office, is a really doughty and dogged campaigner for the rights of animals. Obviously he backs a global ban on trophy hunting.

Meanwhile at home, thousands and thousands of badgers continue to be killed. The Government have also authorised bee-killing neonic pesticides and have failed to act to stop illegal hunting or effectively limit peat extraction and moorland burning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) outlined in her speech. Of course, I cannot forget foxhunting. The killing of any animal will have an impact on our natural world and biodiversity, and hunting is no different. We have so many more priorities; I urge the Government to clean our waters, clean our air and protect our green spaces as a starter for 10.

Labour will deliver the change that we all want to see. Action at home must showcase for the world how a positive nature policy can practically be delivered across Government. The shadow Chancellor has committed a Labour Government to a robust net zero and nature-positive test for every policy. That will be backed with a £28 billion a year investment to meet the challenge of the climate and nature emergency, create certainty for business, and provide leadership as we seize all the opportunities before our United Kingdom.

Earlier this week I attended the online meeting with Patrick Vallance. Nobody who was there could have failed to leave fired up and ready to do whatever is necessary to protect our planet and preserve our environment. We can address both the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis. I say to the Government: if they cannot do both, they should get out of the way because we will. The truth is that, when we want them to, Government can and do make real change to the lives of people and our environment, too. The clock is ticking on the Prime Minister’s time in office, and it is ticking on our mission to save our planet, too. Now is the time for transformational change for our people and our planet. I wish COP15 well and hope that all those round the table will heed the warnings, wake up and smell the coffee, and get back to work.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I welcome the new Minister to his position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Health Service Journal is reporting that the Minister of State, Department for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) incorrectly told the House yesterday that a contract was in place to provide surge capacity for ambulance services, despite the contract not having been awarded yet. Have you, Mr Deputy Speaker, had any notification from the Minister that she plans to come to the House to clarify the record?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for forward notice of it. I have not been given any notification of any statements likely to be made by any Ministers. As he knows, the Chair is not responsible for the content of any statements that have been made. If inaccuracies happen, I expect them to be corrected as soon as possible. However, if the Minister’s interpretation of what has happened is not quite the same as the hon. Member’s, then clearly that is a matter for debate. The Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order and I am sure they will pass it on to the Minister.

Ofwat: Strategic Priorities

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Environmental Audit Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2021-22, Water Quality in Rivers, HC 74, and the Government response, HC 164. Letter from the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, dated 21 October 2021, concerning the consultation on the draft Strategic Priority Statement for Ofwat.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we start the next Backbench business, may I remind everybody that anybody who wishes to take part in this debate, and indeed in any debate, should be here for the opening speeches, for a substantial part of the debate itself and for the entirety of the wind-ups? If you cannot do that, please come to see me in the Chair to have your name taken off the list, and then just intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Dunne]

Again, my hon. Friend has made a point that I was intending to make in my speech. In fact, it is my final point. I have something specifically to address that in a request to the Minister when we get there. He is absolutely right: development puts pressure on the water treatment works without requiring developers to contribute to improving that infrastructure.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Dunne, could you please face the front of the House, so that your wonderful voice can be picked up by the microphone and your words everlastingly put into Hansard?

[Philip Dunne]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will address you, as I should do.

I was just saying how heartened I have been to be involved in a campaign over the past two years with so many people from across society and the political spectrum who are engaged in trying to restore our rivers to a healthy and natural state. Some people have called for the issue to be solved overnight; of course, in an ideal world we would all like that to be the case, but it is simply not deliverable.

We need to introduce a degree of realism into the debate, because otherwise we find people out there in the wider community believing some of the very unfortunate propaganda that has been used for party political reasons on this debate—not today, but during the course of these discussions—to try to make out that, for example, Conservatives are voting in favour of sewage pollution. That is completely inappropriate and a disgraceful slur, given the work that has been done by Conservatives, with others.

Deposit Return Scheme

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

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

If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the day of the Humble Address to Her Majesty, I wish to add my voice and those of the constituents of Bury St Edmunds to the voices of others in this place who have expressed their deep appreciation of and thanks for Her Majesty’s dedication, kindness, good humour and service to our nation. She has visited our great county on many occasions and I know that we will celebrate, as the rest of the country will, with bunting and fanfare over the coming week. I am looking forward to judging a fancy dress competition in one of my lovely villages.

As a long-term advocate for our natural environment, Her Majesty, I am sure, would be extremely interested in the important subject that we are discussing today. On that note, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing this debate and for the opportunity to discuss the Government’s plans for introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers.

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, there is an awful lot going on in this space, driven by our resources and waste strategy and the powers that we took in the Environment Act 2021, which was passed last November. With that in mind, we are proud to be driving forward work across the collection and packaging reforms, which is made up of the deposit return scheme, the extended producer responsibility for packaging and the increased consistency in recycling collections in England to which he referred.

The DRS is pivotal to this Government’s commitment to increasing recycling rates. However, we should not overlook that it will provide other benefits. In particular, it will deliver high-quality recyclate for recycling; enable the drinks industry to close the loop on its packaging; help move the UK towards the circular economy, where resources are kept in use longer and waste is minimised, taking us away from that linear throwaway society; deter the littering of in-scope containers; reduce the associated damage to wildlife and habitats; and therefore promote pro-environmental consumer behaviours, with potential knock-on effects on other positive environmental activities.

My hon. Friend has raised some important concerns on behalf of the industry. I want to be clear that our ambition is to introduce a deposit return scheme that works for everyone—for the consumer and across the industries. I know that, in many of our households, across the UK, drinks packaged in metal cans are drunk regularly. For that reason, we all recognise that those cans—light, sturdy, and convenient for storage and transport—have intrinsic qualities that will always make them desirable to consumers and the product of choice. We are of course mindful that any cost to people’s purses, or businesses is particularly tough in the current environment, but we do want to introduce policies that encourage recycling and reduce the amount of litter that blights our environment.

Although DRS is a complex policy to introduce, requiring the efforts of multiple industries, in one way, we are lucky. As my hon. Friend said, there are 40 other deposit return schemes out there, in other nations, from which we can learn. Not only are we drawing on the experiences of the roll-out of DRS in Scotland to inform implementation and planning, but I had the pleasure of meeting the Environment Minister from Lithuania, where a scheme was also recently introduced. I have plans to visit Norway shortly to find out more about its deposit return scheme. Norway has not included glass in its scheme, and nor have the Netherlands or Sweden. I note that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but I understand that southern Ireland, in its plans for a scheme, is contemplating excluding glass. There is, therefore, a mixture of schemes out there.

I recognise that there are deposit return schemes with different scope across the United Kingdom, given that glass is excluded in England and Northern Ireland, but we remain totally committed to working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is a completely coherent, interoperable system across the UK.

Excluding glass offers us an opportunity to look at how we incentivise reusable schemes for glass. Those containers that are not within the deposit return scheme are within the extended producer responsibility scheme, so exclusion does not in any way mean that we are not making policy to improve the reuse, recycling and resource efficiency of those things. On the question of VAT, as my hon. Friend would expect, we are in discussion with Her Majesty’s Treasury. I have met the Financial Secretary on this matter in the recent past, as has the Secretary of State.

Ultimately, DEFRA’s ambitious collections and packaging reform agenda cannot be delivered by Government alone. The deposit return scheme will be an industry-led scheme. For that reason we, alongside colleagues in the devolved Administrations, continue to work closely with all relevant sectors to implement a scheme that is as coherent and aligned as we can make it.

I take this opportunity to thank all those who have fed into the consultations, and those who continue to be generous with their insights and expertise into what is positive about schemes they run and where they think we can improve. That will ensure that we deliver a successful deposit return scheme in England.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I put the Question, on behalf of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker team, I wish everybody working at the Palace of Westminster a most glorious, historic platinum jubilee four-day celebration next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Report on the use of sentient animals in Ministry of Defence exercises—

“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report under section 2 on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of their use by the Ministry of Defence.

(2) The report shall cover use of animals as defined by this Act in section 5(1).

(3) The report shall cover use of animals by the Ministry of Defence in—

(a) military exercises,

(b) military engagements, and

(c) experiments by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

(4) This report shall include recommendations for future government action under section 2(3) and (4).”

This new clause requires the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the use of sentient animals in scientific experiments and military exercises by the Ministry of Defence and its executive agency the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.

New clause 3—Report on the use of sentient animals in animal experimentation in

government policy—

“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report under section 2 on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of government policy on experimentation on animals.

(2) The report shall cover both animal experimentation where alternative (non-animal based) methods of testing exist, and where no alternative exists.

(3) The report shall cover—

(a) medical testing,

(b) cosmetics testing, and

(c) weapons testing.

(4) This report shall include recommendations for future government action under section 2 (3) and (4).”

New clause 4—Animal Welfare Strategy—

“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee must publish and lay before Parliament an animal welfare strategy within 12 months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The animal welfare strategy must set out the process by which government departments and Ministers are to ensure that in the formulation or implementation of policy all due regard has been had to any adverse welfare consequences for the welfare of animals as sentient beings.

(3) Each department must notify the Committee of any policy under consideration where there is a reasonable likelihood that it would have an adverse impact on the welfare of animals.

(4) Where the Committee is of the view that in the process of formulating or implementing policy a department has not complied, or is not complying, with the process set out in the strategy and therefore may not be having, or has not had, all due regard to animal welfare, the Committee can make recommendations to that department or request an explanation from the relevant minister. Any recommendations or explanation must be made in writing and published.

(5) Recommendations and explanations need not be published if they concern a matter of national security or commercially sensitive information.

(6) Failure to comply with the process set out in the strategy, will not automatically be taken as a failure to have had all due regard to animal welfare, if the Minister can demonstrate that they have met the objective of having had all due regard by other means.

(7) Ministers and departments must provide the Committee with any information the Committee reasonably requests to enable it to carry out its function.”

This new clause would ensure that there is a clear strategy setting out how the animal welfare implications of policies in formulation or implementation are to be incorporated in the process of developing, deciding and implementing those policies. This would ensure that the same process applied across all departments.

New clause 5—Report on the impact of government policy on river pollution on

sentient animals—

“The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report on the impact of government policy on river pollution on sentient animals.

(1) The annual report must include—

(a) the number of sentient animals killed or injured as a result of polluted rivers.

(b) a description of the actions of water companies to guarantee the protection of sentient animals.

(c) an assessment of the effect of government policy on (a) and (b).

(2) The first annual report on the impact of polluted rivers on sentient animals may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which this section comes into force.

(3) The annual report must be published and laid before Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which the report relates.”

This new clause would require the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the impact of polluted rivers on sentient animals.

New clause 6—Report on the impact of trade agreements on sentient animals—

“The Animal Sentience Committee must produce an annual report on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of UK trade agreements.

(1) The annual report must cover how the UK government has taken the sentience of animals into account when establishing new trade deals.

(2) The first annual report on the impact of trade agreements on sentient animals may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which this section comes into force.

(3) The annual report must be published and laid before Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which the report relates.”

This new clause would require the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the impact of UK trade agreements on sentient animals.

Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “must” insert “by regulations”.

This amendment would require the Animal Sentience Committee to be established by regulations.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in the process of formulating policy, it is satisfied the Government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.

(1B) It is not the function of the Committee to—

(a) comment on the policy decisions of Ministers or to recommend future policy or changes to existing policy, or

(b) consider other considerations of public interest, including economic, cultural and religious considerations, or impacts on different species, in the formulation and implementation of any policy.

(1C) Schedule 1 makes provision for the Committee’s membership and powers; and other aspects of the Committee’s work.”

This amendment clarifies the Committee’s role and makes clear the Committee is limited to commenting on process. It makes explicit that Ministers should take into account any other public interest considerations. It also gives effect to NS1, which sets out the structure, membership criteria and operation of the Committee.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 5, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—“(2) The regulations must set out—

(a) details of how the Animal Sentience Committee is to be composed, and

(b) its terms of reference.

(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.

(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft statutory instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This would require the Animal Sentience Committee to be established by regulations, which must set out its composition and terms of reference, ensuring Parliament has the opportunity to approve the final form of the Committee.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

“(4) No person may be appointed as a member of the Committee unless they have confirmed that they—

(a) are not a member of, or affiliated to an organisation promoting animal rights;

(b) are not employed and have never been employed by or been a consultant of an organisation promoting animal rights; and

(c) are not in receipt of, nor have ever been in receipt of, direct or indirect payments or funding, from an organisation promoting animal rights.”

The amendment would ensure that a person may not be appointed a member of the Committee without confirming that they are not and have never been a member of or affiliated to an organisation promoting animal rights, nor are or have been in receipt of funding from such an organisation.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have all due regard to the need for the Committee to possess appropriate expertise and experience, to include animal behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law, and public administration. The Secretary of State may not appoint a person as a member of the Committee if the person is—

(a) a member of the House of Commons,

(b) a member of the House of Lords,

(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,

(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,

(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(f) a councillor of a local authority.

(g) is an employee, former employee, or is a consultant or former consultant to, a charity or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, or is or has been in receipt of any payments or funding from such a charity or organisation, whether directly or indirectly.

(1B) Appointments shall be subject to regulation by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.”

This amendment would clarify the range of expertise of the membership of the Committee and preclude certain categories of person. This is an alternative to Amendment 6 and uses the same wording as that found in NS1.

Amendment 21, page 1, line 8, leave out clause 2 and insert—

“Reports of the Committee

(1) The Committee must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out whether it is satisfied that all due regard has been had to animal welfare, in accordance with the Animal Welfare Strategy. The report is to be published and laid before Parliament.

(2) The report must state in the affirmative or negative whether it is satisfied that each department of state has complied with the Animal Welfare Strategy.

(3) The Committee may produce interim reports relating to individual departments and policy areas under consideration, at any time, including making recommendations, where it considers it is necessary to ensure compliance with the animal welfare strategy for the purpose set out in section 1(2).”

This amendment largely replicates the existing Bill but takes account of the Animal Welfare Strategy, while still allowing the Committee to play a role where it feels that there has been a failure of process in compliance with the Strategy at a stage before a policy decision has been made.

Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out “or has been”.

This amendment would ensure the Animal Sentience Committee looked at policies under consideration, or proposed, not policies that have already been decided.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 9, leave out “or implemented”.

This amendment would ensure that the Committee is focused on the process of deciding policy and not the implementation of that policy. It would also ensure the Committee did not look at past policy decisions being implemented.

Amendment 13, page 1, line 10, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Animal Sentience Committee to report on all government policy across departments.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 12, leave out “or has had”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) The report must state whether in the view of the Committee the question in subsection (2) has been answered in the affirmative or in the negative.”

This amendment would require the Committee to state clearly whether in deciding any policy the minister had, or had not, had full regard to the implications of that policy on animal welfare.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) Recommendations made by the Committee must respect legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”

This amendment seeks to place a duty on the Committee to have regard to the balancing factors included in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 13 of Title II, to which the UK was a party before Brexit.

Amendment 16, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(8) In producing a report under this section, the Animal Sentience Committee must consult the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Animal Welfare Committee and publish a note in the report of the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion and advice on the recommendations contained in the report.”

This amendment requires the Committee to consult the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Animal Welfare Committee on its reports and include a report of its opinions and advice.

Amendment 22, page 2, line 18, leave out clause 3 and insert—

“Response to reports

(1) The relevant Minister must lay before Parliament a response to the report, where a failure to comply with the Animal Welfare Strategy has been identified.

(2) The response must be laid before Parliament within a period of three months from the day on which the Committee’s report is published.”

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and ensures that ministers must explain to Parliament any failure to comply with the Animal Welfare Strategy identified by the Committee.

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, after “2,” insert

“where the committee has found the question in section 2(2) to have been answered in the negative,”.

This amendment would require the Minister to respond only where the Committee has found that the minister has not had all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.

Amendment 17, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) The response must contain the views of other expert committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee, and, where they disagree with the views of the Animal Sentience Committee, the Secretary of State must state which view the Government supports and the reasons for making that decision.”

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s response to the Animal Sentience Committee report includes the views of other expert committees, and, if in conflict, the Secretary of State must state with which committee’s view the Government agrees and give the reasons.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(4) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to each response to a report from the Animal Sentience Committee laid before Parliament under paragraph (1).”

This amendment would require the Minister to give an oral response to Animal Sentience Committee reports, creating an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of report recommendations and the Government’s response.

Amendment 18, in clause 5, page 3, line 1, at end insert—

“‘Policy’ means any proposal or decided course of action by or on behalf of a minister in the exercise of their statutory or common law powers. Policy does not include the decisions of ministers not to act, including changing an existing policy or law.”

This amendment provides a definition of policy for the purposes of the Animal Sentience Committee.

Amendment 19, page 3, line 1, at end insert—

“(1A) Nothing in this Act applies to an animal while it is in its foetal or embryonic form, except in relation to an animal to which sections 1 (protected animals) and 2 (regulated procedures) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as amended apply.”

This amendment ensures consistency with existing legislation.

Amendment 20, page 3, line 4, at end insert—

“(2A) The power under subsection (2) may only be exercised if the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are sentient, and the Secretary of State lays a report before Parliament setting out the scientific basis for determining that the species concerned is sentient.”

This amendment, as in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, seeks to ensure the power to extend the scope of sentience is based on scientific evidence and does not result from a political motivation or personal preference.

New schedule 1—The Animal Sentience Committee—

Membership

1 (1) The Animal Sentience Committee is to consist of—

(a) a member appointed by the Secretary of State to chair the Committee, and

(b) at least 8 but no more than 11 other members appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have all due regard to the need for the Committee to possess appropriate expertise and experience, to include animal behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law, and public administration.

(3) A member is appointed for such period not exceeding 4 years as the Secretary of State determines.

(4) The Secretary of State may reappoint as a member of the Committee a person who is, or has been, a member. A member shall not normally be reappointed consecutively for more than two terms of office.

(5) The Secretary of State may not appoint a person as a member of the Committee if the person is—

(a) a member of the House of Commons,

(b) a member of the House of Lords,

(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,

(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,

(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(f) a councillor of a local authority,

(g) an employee or former employee, or a consultant or former consultant to a charity or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, and

(h) a person in receipt of, or previously in receipt of, any direct or indirect payments or funding from a charity or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights.

General Powers

2 (1) The Committee may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the performance of its function as defined in section 1(2).

(2) The foregoing includes, but is not limited to, requesting from the government such information and material as it considers necessary.

(3) So far as is reasonable and practicable, the government shall comply with any request from the Committee under paragraph 2(2). If the government declines such a request it shall provide to the Committee its reasons for doing so in writing.

(4) In the event that the Committee considers the government has failed to meet the duty in paragraph 2(3) it may make reference to this in any report produced in accordance with section 2 of this Act.

(5) It shall be for the Committee to identify those policies which in its view might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.

(6) Without prejudice to the foregoing, the government shall take reasonable steps to advise the Committee of its intention to formulate or implement any policy which might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.

(7) If in producing a report under section 2 of this Act the Committee considers it to be desirable that the government receives further guidance on how animal welfare might be improved in relation to the relevant policy, it may refer the matter to an appropriate committee established for the purpose of providing such advice to ministers.

(8) The Committee may invite to attend its meetings on either a permanent or temporary basis any person appointed to chair a body established by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive to provide advice on the welfare or protection of animals in relation to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy. Persons attending in such an ex officio capacity shall not participate in any decisions of the Committee.

(9) The Committee shall publish the name and qualifications of any person invited to provide advice to the Committee and shall publish any advice given.

Independence and transparency

3 (1) The Committee shall be independent and autonomous of any other body.

(2) Within six months of its establishment, the Committee shall publish a memorandum setting out how it intends to carry out its function. The memorandum is to be kept under review and may be amended from time to time as the Committee considers appropriate.

(3) The memorandum shall include guidance as to how it expects ministers to demonstrate they have had all due regard to the ways in which a policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.

(4) Within 12 months of being established, and thereafter as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, the Committee shall prepare and publish a report on the exercise of its functions during that year.

(5) The Committee’s reports shall be laid before Parliament.

(6) The Committee will determine the form and content of each of its reports.

Expenses and resources

4 (1) Members of the Committee, and any members of sub-committees established under paragraph 6, who are not members of the Committee, are entitled to such expenses as the Secretary of State may determine.

(2) The government is to provide the Committee with such staff and other resources as the Committee requires to carry out its function.

(3) Staff serving the Committee shall be based in the Cabinet Office and independent of any other Department of State.

Early termination of membership

5 (1) A member of the Committee may resign by giving notice in writing to the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by giving notice to the member in writing, remove a member of the Committee if the Secretary of State considers that the member is—

(a) unable to perform the functions of a member, or

(b) unsuitable to continue as a member.

(3) A person’s membership of the Committee ends if the person becomes—

(a) a member of the House of Commons,

(b) a member of the House of Lords,

(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,

(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,

(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(f) a councillor of a local authority, and

(g) an employee of or a consultant to a charity or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, or receives any direct or indirect payment or funding from such a charity or organisation.

Sub-Committees

6 (1) The Committee may establish sub-committees.

(2) The membership of a sub-committee may include persons who are not members of the Committee but those persons are not entitled to vote at meetings of the sub-committee.

(3) The Committee must publish a list of the membership of any sub-committee where it includes persons who are not members of the main Committee.

Regulation of procedure

7 The Committee may regulate its own procedure (including quorum) and that of any sub-committees.

Validity of things done

8 The validity of anything done by the Committee or its sub-committees is not affected by—

(a) a vacancy in membership,

(b) a defect in the appointment of a member, and

(c) the disqualification of a person as a member after appointment.”

This new schedule is consequential on Amendments 3, 4 and 5. It sets out a structure for the Committee, criteria for appointments and how it is to operate.

[Jim McMahon]

At long last, this legislation has finally found its way through Parliament. The Government could have dealt with this years ago had they not opposed the recognition of animal sentience and had they included it in other laws that carried over in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.

The Conservatives have a track record of umming and ahhing, and they cannot seem to decide whether animal welfare is important. The truth is that, despite their warm words, the action never quite lives up to the promise. There were rumours that, due to unforeseen political concerns, the Government planned to let animal welfare legislation simply fall away at the end of the Session, for no other reason than managing internal party tensions.

It is quite clear that this issue continues to paralyse the Government Benches. That is why we have little bits of animal welfare Bills floating around here, there and everywhere, each intended to narrow the scope and avoid having to address issues such as blood sports, hunting and shooting, and each in the end destined to fall.

We should be discussing a comprehensive animal welfare Bill. That is what the country wants, and it is what the Government promised. Nevertheless, the Minister could clarify that any outstanding Bills relating to animal welfare will either be completed in this Session or, if not, carried over into the next.

Turning to this Bill, my Labour colleagues and I support enshrining animal sentience in law. My party has been saying for a number of years that that is desperately needed. We support the Bill, in the sense that it is better than doing nothing, but it feels as though the Government are more interested in using this as a photo opportunity than in seizing the moment and ensuring that we have a long-term strategy on animal welfare.

That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) tabled this new clause and amendment 1. Labour’s new clause 1 places a direct legal obligation on the Secretary of State to produce an animal sentience strategy, requiring annual updates to Parliament on its progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) rightly stated at Committee Stage, the Bill in its current form,

“places indirect responsibilities on Ministers”,

in that,

“they must simply establish and maintain a committee and lay written responses, rather than assuming direct responsibilities on these matters, which is what we would like to see.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2022; c. 27.]

This new clause would not only bring us into line with neighbouring countries, but significantly strengthen the responsibilities of the Animal Sentience Committee and ensures that the work is about more than just words and symbolism. For the same reasons, we wanted the Minister to give an oral update on the Floor of the House on the Animal Sentience Committee reports, providing a platform for parliamentary scrutiny of the report’s recommendations and the Government’s response.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge also said at Committee Stage, for the Animal Sentience Committee to have any heft at all, the Government cannot be allowed to simply shrug off the recommendations in its reports, especially if they are politically inconvenient or cause Back-Bench stirs on the Government Benches.

The new clause would require a Minister to make a motion in both Houses of Parliament, which would provide a genuine opportunity to properly scrutinise the reports and the Government’s response. Without that, the Committee’s findings will simply not be given the attention they deserve, and we will not have the right scrutiny on the critical issue of animal welfare.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has said, as it stands the Animal Sentience Committee risks becoming just another toothless talking shop—a Whitehall committee where, in the end, the reports gather dust, while critical issues of animal welfare within policy making go unaddressed.

Opposition Members care deeply about animal welfare. In Government, the Labour party brought forward landmark legislation in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Hunting Act 2004. We are the party of animal welfare, so we cannot help but feel that this piecemeal piece of legislation will not address the long-standing concerns on animal welfare.

The Opposition are clear that all animals deserve protection, whether they are pets, wild animals, ocean animals or farm animals. It is hard to believe that this Government are serious about animal welfare, given that they are still resisting banning foie gras and fur imports, both of which are horrifically cruel and completely unnecessary. In last year’s Queen’s Speech, the Government committed to ending the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter and taking further steps to limit the foie gras trade. So where is that promise? The Secretary of State could have included that piece of legislation right here, right now but, as is typical with a Conservative Government, they are big on promises and small on delivery.

Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I do not think the operation was called Operation Shag a Dog, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to correct the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I heard shaggy dog. I am sure everybody heard shaggy dog.

[Jim McMahon]

I am happy to clarify the record. I am, of course, referring to the Dulux dog, my favourite being Digby, although everyone has their own favourite.

Let us return to the real task in hand, because as much as we talk about the fun of Parliament and the Prime Minister’s latest crisis and turmoil, this debate is about the people of this country. The people of this country are being ignored while Downing Street is in despair: first, there is the cost of living crisis on food, energy bills and goods; secondly, the universal credit cut, cutting the income of 6 million families; and, finally, putting up taxes on working people and businesses, leaving us with the biggest tax burden for 70 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

No, I am going to conclude now.

The food strategy will be published shortly and I am very much looking forward to bringing the White Paper before the House. We are working on the final draft at the moment, and I very much expect it will be here in weeks, rather than months. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a food system that feeds our nation today and protects it for tomorrow. It will build on existing work across Government and identify new opportunities to make the food system healthier, more sustainable, more resilient and more accessible for people across the UK.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just to give everyone an indication, a lot of people are trying to catch my eye and I anticipate that we will start the wind-up speeches no later than 4.10. There will be 10 minutes then for each Front Bencher, and the switch-over for those wanting to take part in the next debate should be no later than 4.30, but those outside the Chamber should please keep an eye on the monitors, as that could come earlier. There will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions immediately after Peter Grant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Again, the hon. Member has got it absolutely spot on. Tory Back Benchers have been given quotes to read out by their Whips, and they routinely read them out regardless of whether they bear any relation to reality or whether they completely cut the feet from the argument presented in an earlier quote. They sometimes forget, especially these days, that what the Whips tell them to say today might well contradict what they told them to say yesterday, because the truth may have had to change.

Labour is absolutely right to condemn the record of this Tory Government, but Scotland will not forget that in previous incarnations the Labour party has played its part in creating this crisis. I know that it will not make comfortable listening for Labour Members to be reminded of that. One of the reasons we have been worse hit than a lot of other European countries is that even before the pandemic we were already one of the most unequal societies in Europe. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned that in his speech, but previous Labour Governments did nothing to address it. The Blair-Brown Government managed to preside over an increase in inequalities in Fife, Gordon Brown’s home county, during a period of economic growth.

Although I have no doubt that Labour in Scotland will demand that the SNP Scottish Government fix the whole problem, Labour has repeatedly voted against giving Scotland the powers to allow us to do just that. Employment law, minimum wage legislation, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, banning fire and rehire, and the proper provision of sick pay could all have been put into the Scotland Act in 2015. Labour voted to keep all that within the hands of the Tories. Energy; the energy price cap; discriminatory charges for access to the national grid for Scottish producers; a decades-long obsession with nuclear power, whose true costs the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy admitted to the Public Accounts Committee yesterday we still do not even know—Labour’s policy on all these has been almost identical to the Tories’. Labour’s policy has been that Scotland should trust this Government on all of them.

Pensions—reserved to Westminster; income-related benefits—almost entirely reserved to Westminster; the national insurance increase, which everybody in this House opposes—reserved to Westminster. In fact, on pensions, during my time as an MP we have seen this British Government betray their promises to millions of WASPI women, betray their promises on the pensions triple lock and free TV licences, and underpay more than £1 billion in pensions to over 130,000 pensioners. Last year they also failed to pay tens of thousands of pensioners their pensions at all after they had reached state pension age.

It is quite clear that we cannot trust this Government with pensions, any more than we can trust them to look after anyone else living on a low income, but Scotland will never forget who did a tour of pensioners clubs in 2014 and told the people of Scotland: “Your pensions will be safe under a British Government.” My message to Gordon Brown is this: our pensions will never be safe under any British Government. If he thinks that the people of Scotland will be fooled by the same myth next time, as they were in 2014, he has another think coming.

Although we will support the motion if it is put to a vote, and although the recent crisis has been made infinitely worse by the British Conservative party, we will not allow the Scottish Labour party, or the UK Labour party, to forget that the reason why Scotland is still part of this mess is the unholy coalition that Labour chose to enter into with the Conservative party at the last independence referendum. I urge Labour Members to consider very seriously indeed whether it is in the interests of their voters in Scotland or the rest of the UK for them to form a similar coalition with the Tories at the next independence referendum.

Royal Assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022.

Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

Debate resumed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will now have a five-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Gideon]

Absolutely—exercise and food go hand in hand in a healthy lifestyle.

There are plenty of fast food outlets in Stoke, but it is quite difficult to find nutritious options. It is not about eliminating all unhealthy choices or making us feel guilty about eating them: it is about increasing the choices available and ensuring that everyone can easily find and afford good food. I am reminded of the words of Lord Woolton, the Conservative party’s food Minister in the 1940s. He said:

“Feeding is not enough, it must be good feeding.”

Those words are as true today as they were back then.

Many colleagues have commented that my social media includes many posts of me eating a variety of what Stoke has to offer, from oatcakes—which are an important part of our culture and heritage—to healthy Sunday roasts. I have been surprised how popular the posts are. I do them to show food choices in our city and to promote local businesses and organisations through the medium of food. Food is central to our society, communities and daily lives. Food brings us together and allows us to share stories, ideas and cultures, and build wonderful memories, but food should not make us sick.

Currently, four out of five leading risk factors for disability, disease and death are related to poor diets. In other words, the British diet is making us sick. While the average percentage of adults living with obesity or excess weight is 62% in England, it is 72.8% in Stoke-on-Trent. The health profile for the area shows that in the majority of health categories—for example, cancer rates, cardiovascular disease, obesity, life expectancy, physical activity, smoking and alcohol—the situation is significantly worse than the national average. I cannot accept this. How can we level everything up if our people locally are getting more sick and dying earlier than people elsewhere?

That is why it is important that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Michael Gove, included the Government’s obesity strategy, and some policy recommendations from Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, in the “Levelling Up” White Paper. However, more needs to be done. The “Levelling Up” White Paper sets a blueprint for future White Papers such as the Government’s formal response to the national food strategy. This must set out a bold, brave and ambitious set of immediately actionable policies to help everyone in Britain to eat well. The six non-negotiable actions include the “eat and learn” recommendation that includes mandatory accreditation for food served in school to ensure that high-quality and nutritious food is not a postcode lottery; school curriculum changes such as reinstating the food A-level and Ofsted inspection of such lessons; and mandatory reporting for large food producers and manufacturers so that we know the proportion of healthier versus unhealthy food that companies are selling, as well as other metrics such as food waste.

We need to look at the sugar and salt tax. We need to look at public procurement so that those in our public sector buildings get the healthy food that they deserve. We need to introduce a good food Bill. We need to ensure that all these strategies feed into each other making sure that we are the healthiest we can be. That is absolutely part of levelling up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind Members not to refer to Ministers or Members by their names, please. I did not want to stop the hon. Lady’s flow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I do not believe Mr Lavery is going to give way, so please save your voice for the rest of the speech. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. What did the Member say?

[Hon. Members]

He said, “Coward.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Please withdraw that word.

[Lee Anderson]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the hon. Member is not a coward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

[Ian Lavery]

Mr Deputy Speaker, that has taken out a minute and a half of my time, but thank you very much for allowing me to continue. I am far from a coward, by the way.

The debate in here is quite often about relative poverty or absolute poverty, but that does not make any difference, man. We live in a country—the sixth richest economy in the world—where we have 4.3 million kids living in poverty, and we have 14 million people living in poverty. It does not matter how or what we claim about poverty, and it does not matter whether we have reduced it by 1 million or whatever. If we have millions of people in poverty, we should be bloody well ashamed of ourselves. It is a political choice and we can do things about it. We could have done something about it last night, but obviously we did not do what some of us chose to do and vote against the benefits uprating.

To move on very quickly, the fact is that there are them that have and them who do not. Is it not really embarrassing to this country when we have chief executives of energy companies, which have just made $40 billion in the last few weeks, suggesting that it is not bragging to say their companies are like cash machines? What does that make people in poverty feel? And we introduce a “Buy now, pay later” scheme and think that is enough support.

Thank you for your forbearance, Mr Deputy Speaker. In concluding, let us tax the super-wealthy, the Tory donors and the corporations—they are the real benefit cheats in this country—because, quite frankly, that is the only way we will start to tackle the inequalities and make life look much brighter for many people in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like your advice about the intimidation that I seem to be getting from the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). The last couple of times I have been in the Chamber, there have been some absolutely terrible remarks. I am sure you remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, the last time he had to return and apologise. How can this be stopped? How can we tackle it? If Members do not want to give way, they do not have to, but they should not suffer abuse as a result.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I was in the Chair the very last time this happened. That is why I intervened to say that the hon. Gentleman was not giving way. I could not hear what the hon. Member for Ashfield said, because I was talking when he said it, and he then withdrew it. However, Mr Speaker made it absolutely clear at the beginning of today’s sitting, after what happened on the streets of London yesterday, that we must all be temperate in the language we use, not only in the Chamber but outside it. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will take that on board before they stand up, and even when they make sedentary interventions, and that they are very temperate in the language they use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes in order to call a few more Members in, but we will not get everybody in, sadly.