Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this we will take the following motion:

That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.

[Victoria Prentis]

Both these statutory instruments amend retained EU legislation relating to the common organisation of agricultural markets and domestic secondary legislation relating to that area. The first instrument also makes some provision in respect of organic production that will ensure the operability of retained EU law. I should make it clear that the amendments made by the instruments are technical in nature. They do not introduce new policy but instead maintain continuity as far as possible.

The aim of the instruments is to ensure that the relevant retained EU legislation is fully operable at the end of the transition period. The retained EU legislation was previously made operable to the UK as a whole on the basis that the UK left the EU without an agreement. However, as we have left the EU with the withdrawal agreement in place, the retained legislation now needs to be updated to reflect this—in particular, the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. As such, the majority of the amendments made by these instruments relate to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. For example, they might remove references to Northern Ireland or replace UK references with Great Britain references, as Northern Ireland will of course remain aligned with the EU under the protocol.

Amendments are also being made to a small number of transitional provisions, either to align them with the Government’s border operating model, which introduces new border controls for the movement of goods between GB and the EU in three stages up to July 2021, or because they were introduced on the basis that the UK would leave without a deal and are therefore no longer required. Those provisions concern the import of hops and hop products, notification requirements for the import of beef and veal from third countries, and marketing requirements for hatching eggs and chicks imported from the EU. All other transitional provisions will be retained, with references to “exit day” replaced with references to “IP completion day”.

As Members are aware, agriculture is a devolved policy area and of great importance to all parts of the UK. Although one of the instruments that we are debating is reserved, we worked closely with the devolved Administrations in producing both instruments, and they have given their consent as necessary.

These statutory instruments will help to provide necessary continuity for stakeholders and beneficiaries. They will ensure that retained EU legislation relating to the common organisation of the markets and organic production functions correctly after the end of the transition period, and that we have an operable legal framework that supports farmers and traders and delivers continuity. I urge Members to agree to the amendments proposed in these regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for their contributions. They asked a large number of questions, and if I do not answer them all, I apologise; it is merely an oversight, and I am happy to take them up offline outside the Chamber.

On the poultry meat issue, I am always happy to confirm that there is no possibility of chlorine-washed chicken entering our food chain unless this House votes for that to be the case, and I really do not see that happening—do you, Mr Deputy Speaker? As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place drew the other place’s attention to the Department’s explanation on poultry meat. I apologise; our explanation did not provide sufficient context on the checks relating to poultry meat marketing standards, and that might have caused concern because it was not sufficiently clear. The reason is that on these particular operational indicators, no third country currently uses the standards, so there is no current need to have an operational enforceable system for checking that they are there. That is the reason that that has not been an issue to date. I assure all Members that although the specific matters are not covered by these regulations, the Government remain absolutely committed to high standards, as we said many times during the passage of the Agriculture Bill.

The difference between the poultry meat transition period, which is 12 months, and the fruit and vegetable transition period, which is two years, is to enable us, in a very pragmatic and practical way, to upgrade our IT systems and recruit the right sort of inspectors to do the checks. We are working closely with the EU Commission on that, and nobody should be afraid of the difference between the two. This is merely a pragmatic and appropriate response to an operational issue.

On Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors, again I would not read too much into the word “calibre”. These are specialist staff, so of course they have to be of the right type. We are working hard to increase their numbers at the moment.

On border control posts, we have always been clear that following the Northern Ireland protocol there would be an expansion of facilities at some entry points where certain controls already take place. We are very much in touch with the Northern Ireland Minister. Indeed, I spoke to him twice last week and I expect to do so repeatedly in the next few weeks.

On the devolved Administrations, we have worked collaboratively with them on these statutory instruments. We have sought formal agreement from them on areas that intersect with devolved policy.

There are of course many ways of describing our produce. We frequently describe produce as being from Oxfordshire, for example. In brief, we expect to use the different terms GB, UK and UK(NI) following Brexit, but this is a very complicated issue. As we reach the end of the transition period, we will set out far more detail about labelling. There is some context in these statutory instruments, but not a great deal that needs to concern the devolved Administrations at this point on the labelling front. Discussions with the devolved Administrations have confirmed our mutual understanding of the UK’s alignment on marketing standards. They have always been very keen to align them, so we can work the internal market properly following the end of the transition period.

On lessons learned, as I said in my opening remarks the good thing that happened last year is that we have left the EU with the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol in place. The statutory instruments, which were done in something of a hurry at the end of last year, included the whole of the UK instead of carving out Northern Ireland, because the Northern Ireland protocol did not exist at that point. It is true that in the rush to have a functioning statute book for the proposed exit day at the end of last year, mistakes were made and references were missed. I think it is right that we take the opportunity to correct those mistakes wherever possible and that is what we have done.

To end, producers and consumers will be well served by the passing of these statutory instruments. They help to ensure that retained EU legislation, which protects our standards and supports our farming industries, remains operable at the end of the transition period. They are technical, but nevertheless crucial in ensuring the effectiveness and continuity of that retained legislation. I therefore commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Resolved,

That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.—(Victoria Prentis.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for three minutes.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady has made some strong points. There of course is a cats competition ongoing at the moment, which Mr Speaker’s own cat is in, as is my cat, Charlotte, who is a rescue cat. On a serious note, she suffered significant abuse in the first few months of her life. I rescued her. She was extremely timid and extremely difficult and I have worked with her over the last few years to get her to a much better place. I really want to commend all the cats organisations, including Wood Green, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which is running the cat of the year competition, and many others.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair shows no partiality whatever, but the Speaker’s cat is a very fine cat.

[Caroline Ansell]

I will give way to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to explain why it is actually Government Members who have been misled. At the moment, the protections are absolutely cast-iron, of course, but the day following the end of the transition period, all those cast-iron guarantees slip away. They can be changed and undermined by secondary legislation—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to respond to the intervention but let us not go too wide of the Bill, please; this has nothing to do with the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do think that it is important to address these points when they are made.

We share the deep concerns of the animal welfare organisations that, once again, the Bill may run out of time. A letter sent to the Secretary of State this July, signed by a coalition of 11 organisations—including the RSPCA, Blue Cross and Dogs Trust—has been candid about this, saying that confidence in the Government’s commitment to deliver the Bill is starting to diminish, and what has been promised on so many occasions over the last three years has not materialised. What is needed is a clear timeframe for the passage of the Bill, including when the next stage will be scheduled, because we do not know how long this Session of Parliament will run. Would it not be extraordinary if the Government once again allowed this simple piece of legislation to fall through a lack of Fridays? What a feeble excuse that would be. Can the Minister provide a concrete guarantee that this Bill will now finally get the time it needs, and ensure that those tougher measures will be available to the courts in 2021?

We are supporting the Bill today, but will seek to improve it in Committee. We have concerns, which are shared by a number of stakeholders, about the scope of the Bill. The proposals apply only to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and therefore do not apply to wild animals in the way in which they apply to domestic animals. Our concern is that this will create a two-tier system, even if that is by oversight rather than intention. In discussions around previous iterations of the Bill, we have had good debates about this issue. It is not always a simple or easy distinction, but it does raise possible cases. For example, torturing a pet cat and torturing a feral cat could lead to different penalties. They are both cats, they have both been tortured and they both suffer, so why the distinction?

There are also questions about the different penalties for organised crime. Cases of organised cruelty, such as gangs perpetrating dog fighting, would, we think, come under the Bill, but what about the equally serious and equally organised crime involved in hare coursing? We believe that the same sentences should be available to judges for similar or identical crimes, regardless of whether the animal is domesticated or wild.

Guilty offenders might well seek to persuade a court that a lesser sentence should be imposed if the victim can be classed as a wild animal, but animals have the same welfare needs and any attack on them has the same impact on their welfare, regardless of whether they are a domestic pet, a police dog or a wild animal. They all feel pain, they all suffer, and the people who harm them should feel the full force of the law.

I know that stakeholders have raised a number of additional issues, so I encourage the Minister to consider these carefully. First, will it be necessary to review and revise sentencing guidelines, once the Bill is passed, to enable the courts to establish clearly which offences would merit the toughest available penalties, which may not require a custodial sentence? Secondly, we will need to ensure that bans on keeping pets are properly monitored, recorded and enforced. Thirdly, will she consider the situation of dogs seized during proceedings, who will spend protracted time in kennels while cases go through the courts? Fourthly, will she consider whether filming animal cruelty offences for entertainment should be considered an aggravating factor in crimes, as raised earlier by the hon. Member for Redcar.

It has taken a lot to get the Bill to this stage. I thank the many Members across the house who have campaigned on the issue for many years, including, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and the previous Member for Redcar, Anna Turley. I also pay tribute to the animal welfare organisations that work so tirelessly on the ground to mend the animals that come to them abused and neglected, that have campaigned so successfully to see the Bill come to fruition, and that have continued to inform our debate today. In particular, I thank the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Cats Protection and Dogs Trust for all their hard work.

I will conclude where I began, with Andy Knott of the League Against Cruel Sports. It has indeed been a long trek and, as he suggests, the truck always seems to be parked around the next corner. He says:

“Hop on and get this Bill back to barracks where tea and medals really do await!”

It is time to get on with it and get the legislation on the statute book. The Opposition will do all we can to make that happen and end the scourge of animal cruelty in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who I know has worked incredibly hard in getting this Bill off the ground and getting it through to this stage. I thank him myself and on behalf of my constituents from across Keighley and Ilkley, who have contacted me on this specific issue.

We all love our pets. Whether it is cats, dogs, guinea pigs or, as our right hon. Friend the Education Secretary might say, a tarantula, we all seem to have that bond. I just want to outline a very tragic story that I picked up in my constituency. It was to do with an American bulldog, Smiler, who was unfortunately found by the RSPCA in a bath with her head bloodied. She had physically been abused and was found in a state where the owner had tried to clean her with bleach. That story illustrates the necessity of this Bill and how important it is that we strengthen the sentencing measures to give a clear demonstration that any animal cruelty will not be tolerated at all. Strengthening the provisions up to five years will go a long way to doing that.

I want to conclude, because I am conscious of time. On the Conservative Benches, we are animal lovers, and we are on the side of animal welfare through this Bill being pushed through the House. I am very pleased to see that it has been supported by the Government, and we have also seen the Ivory Bill, CCTV in slaughterhouses and an aspiration and a desire to stop live exports, which I am wholly behind. I am pleased that the Conservative Government will be driving this Bill through.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call the Minister next and then Chris Loder, and then the question will be put. Then we will just suspend for a brief moment for the sanitisation of both Dispatch Boxes before we move on to Sir Christopher Chope’s Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now suspend very briefly for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes. Will those leaving please do so socially distanced?

Sitting suspended.

Agriculture Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 3, 4 18 and 30. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 18, which would establish a Trade and Agriculture Commission, I am satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 February. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 78, the amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The ruling that you have just made regarding amendment 18 will surprise, if not stun, many people outside, who had placed much hope in the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Could you provide the House with any further details of the rationale, because on first reading it is not clear what the financial implications of this particular provision would be? What—if any—other remedies might be available to Members of this House to pursue this matter further?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

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

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

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

Clause 4

Multi-annual financial assistance plans

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

Second Reading

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I should say that the amendment in the name of Ian Blackford and others has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know that fishing in Northern Ireland is particularly important to some communities, particularly when it comes to nephrops, and he is right that it has been a long-standing practice that producer organisations with unutilised quota will often gift some of it to the under-10s so that they have access to more fishing opportunities. In the longer term, it is important that we have a better framework to ensure that inshore vessels do not necessarily have to wait for a gift of quota, but have access to a fairer share of the quota in the first place.

We will also be seeking to overturn an amendment made to clause 1 that would seek to create a hierarchy in the objectives. We think this is unnecessary and unhelpful. Environmental objectives have already been given a degree of priority through the requirement for fisheries management plans, which is how we have addressed that issue.

In conclusion, I have always been clear that the UK will continue to be a world leader in promoting sustainable fisheries, so that we stop hammering vulnerable stocks and think about the longer-term future of our marine environment. We must follow the science, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our fisheries science agency, CEFAS––the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—which is home to some of the world’s most talented marine scientists. There are wonders swimming around our shores—some 8,500 different species. As an island nation, the UK can show the world that a better approach can deliver more balance, profitable fisheries and an enhanced marine environment. This Bill sets in stone our commitment to improve the health of our seas and gives fishermen the better future they deserve. This Fisheries Bill gives us the powers we need to do all these things as an independent coastal state for the first time in decades, and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Luke Pollard, I want to indicate that a six-minute limit will be put on all non-Front-Bench contributions from the very beginning, and it is likely to be reduced further.

Zoos, Aquariums and Wildlife Sanctuaries: Reopening

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As hon. Members can see, there is quite a bit of interest in this debate, so please be mindful of that when you are making contributions, particularly of the length of the contribution.

Flooding

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches because a lot of Members have, quite rightly, shown an interest in this important subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The five-minute rule is now effective.

Just a gentle reminder: please do not refer to Members by name. Refer to them either by their constituency or by their official title.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The clock will still be operating, but I am going to be a little bit more flexible with time during this maiden speech, since there is only one during this debate. Let us be considerate of Holly Mumby-Croft. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Environment Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Dr Ben Spencer to make his maiden speech.

Environment Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Saqib Bhatti to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The speech by the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) does him great credit, and I am sure he will have a long and illustrious career in this House. I will give him one piece of advice: however much taxes may rise, unlike Lady Godiva, could he please keep his clothes on in the Chamber?

This Bill has been introduced because of Brexit. There are a million reasons why people voted for Brexit. For some, it was because of a lack of affordable housing, because the UK was unable to make its own laws, or because Brexit would solve their concerns about low wages. Nobody, however, voted for Brexit because they wanted fewer environmental protections, yet I am sad to say that that is exactly what the Bill, as it stands, represents. That raises the question of how Britain wants to present itself on the world stage, in the year that we host COP to tackle the climate and ecological emergency.

Until the end of this year, 70% of the UK’s environmental protections will come from the union with Europe, which has provided increasingly high environmental standards for 45 years. The Bill represents the majority of the Government’s efforts to import those protections from Europe into UK law, and it replaces wide-ranging protections with four simple domestic targets. Indeed, there are four target areas—water, air, biodiversity and waste—with a minimum of one target required to be set in each. The media are reporting that the Treasury is pushing for a maximum of one target in each area outlined in the Bill, so it seems that we are moving from a whole network of protections to just four. That is a poor trade for our natural environment. I am sorry to say that it is an indication of how the Government interpret their greater environmental obligations after we leave the EU and make our way in the world. The direction we seem to be heading in is backwards.

To prevent that backsliding, the Government must include in the Bill a commitment to the non-regression of environmental standards. I expect that everyone across the House agrees that regression from environmental protections is poor and that standards should not be reneged upon, watered down or discarded. If we were to let that happen it would have real implications not just for UK wildlife, but our own constituents—the water they drink and the air they breathe. There is nothing more fundamental than keeping our constituents from harm. I therefore ask the Government to do what they have said they will do and ensure we have non-regression in the Bill.

Of the four areas set out in the Bill, only one has any details and that is air quality, which is incredibly important. I have one of the worst areas for air quality in the UK. If the Bill is to have any meaningful impact on the quality of our air, it should include a legally binding commitment to meet WHO levels on fine particulate matter pollution by 2030 at the very latest. Even that will come at the expense of many of my constituents’ lives. The Bills lacks coherence and fails to establish a link between the currently lacking target it sets out and the improvement plans the Government should be carrying out. Let us not forget that this is the Government who had to be taken to court three times over their lack of action on air quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) talked about trees and I would like to reinforce what he said about that.

Another area not covered in the Bill is beaches. Let us not forget that the UK was one of the slowest countries in the EU to clean up its beaches. We were still pumping raw sewage into the sea 20 years ago. Improvements to the quality of our natural water have come about as a result of the EU water framework and bathing water directives. How can we now, in the Bill’s 233 pages, not include any targets for beaches? If it is likely that we are just going to get one target, will it be for rivers, water-borne pollution, chemicals or ecological status? We do not know. How can we just have a single water target? We need to ensure that we transpose the protections we have in EU law into UK law.

I want to finish by talking about ministerial powers. In the previous Parliament, we talked a lot about Henry VIII powers. We seem to be returning to Tudor times once more. The Bill confers sweeping powers to enact huge sections of the Bill on the say-so of the Secretary of State. He is not in his place, but I know he is a keen environmentalist. He will spend the majority of the Committee stage—I hope to serve on the Public Bill Committee—looking at this area, but the Bill does not provide any targets or any information until 2022. How are we meant legally to enforce targets in that time period? It is not enough to say, “Trust me, I’m the Secretary of State”. He will say that appointments to the board of the new Office for Environmental Protection will be made by him, but they will be made without parliamentary oversight. It will be sending reports to him, rather than to us here in Parliament. We will have to rely on him.

What happens—we know political shifts happen very rapidly these days—if a future authoritarian Government finds themselves in power and they want to make sweeping changes to the level of environmental protection? The Bill affords them power over what the targets should be and who enforces them. I am sure that such a prospect makes us all nervous, including the Secretary of State. If multiple targets are set in each area, with amendments tabled and improvements made, and if links between targets and improvement plans are strengthened, the Bill could mark the beginning of a framework that provides real environmental protection. However, I must highlight this point to Members on both sides of the House. With its current powers and levels of discretion, the Bill could be used for a catastrophic reduction in protections, leading to poor air quality, polluted waterways, declining biodiversity, exposure to chemical pollution, and a dereliction of our green and pleasant land. It is entirely down to whoever happens to be Secretary of State on any given day to protect them. The Bill gives too much power to an already over-powerful Executive, and must be amended so that Parliament can have democratic oversight, and so that stringent environmental standards are set.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Maiden speech: I call Kate Griffiths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on such an important issue. It is right that we legislate to protect the environment, our water and the air we breathe. It is also vital that we preserve the biodiversity of our countryside and woodlands and conserve our areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Peak district in my constituency, for the enjoyment of everyone.

I am pleased that, after pressure on the Government, the Bill now includes a reference to climate change enforcement. If the rising sea levels, fires and floods do not constitute a threat to our environment, I am not sure what does. The fires in Australia have affected 1.25 billion animals and, according to WWF estimates, have harmed 30% of the koala population. There is abundant scientific research to demonstrate that global heating will result in the extinction of thousands of plants and animal species, and the UK is not immune. It is nonsense to say that we are in favour of biodiversity but not lift a finger to stop the carbon emissions that have led to the destruction of ecosystems and fragile ecologies, making the 10% increase in biodiversity almost impossible to deliver. It is not meaningful to talk about protecting the environment without also talking about how we end the climate catastrophe that is currently wreaking havoc across the globe.

The only way to secure our environment and defend the diversity of our wildlife in the long term is to halt rising temperatures and reach zero emissions by the 2030s. That means fundamentally reshaping our economy and infrastructure by handing power to the people with the greatest interest in stopping climate catastrophe—not the bankers, as we heard earlier, or big businesses, but working people.

Despite the changes to the Bill, the truth is that it falls well short of the protections we need to secure our natural environment for the years to come. The EFRA Committee charged with scrutinising the proposals was right to call them a missed opportunity. This was an opportunity to enshrine environmental protections in all aspects of our public institutions. Instead, the proposals only oblige Ministers to act and only with mealy-mouthed “'due regard to” the principles in the Bill. It was an opportunity to make Britain a beacon of environmental standards for the whole world to follow. Instead, there is no provision in the Bill to prevent our own standards from slipping and falling below those of the European Union; in fact, the environmental principles outlined in it represent a significant downgrading of the principles behind our existing environmental protections. It was an opportunity to create a world-leading, independent institution for environmental auditing. Instead, the Government are proposing to establish an organisation with nowhere near the level of independence that is required to hold Ministers and public bodies to account.

At a time when No. 10 can sack a Chancellor for refusing to fire his staff, are we really to have any confidence that the Government will not seek to interfere in the decisions made by the proposed Office for Environmental Protection? I wonder whether the intention is to create a Cassandra-esque body so that those in power can wrongly ignore the truth that it speaks. To tackle climate change and protect our environment, we need democratic and independent institutions that have the power to enforce action on climate chaos in a meaningful way.

We can either face up to the reality of the climate crisis and transform our institutions, our economy and our infrastructure, or consign our planet and our wildlife to environmental catastrophe. That is the decision we face. It is a historic opportunity and a historic responsibility. I am sorry to say that it is an opportunity that the Bill squanders and a responsibility that it shirks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Marco Longhi to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi). Having so recently given my own maiden speech, it feels a bit cheeky to be congratulating another Member on their maiden speech, but I enjoyed listening to him talk about the warmth of the people he represents, the history of his area and the challenges it faces. With so many maiden speeches today, he faced quite a challenge to compete with the birthplace of the Magna Carta and, indeed, the passionate description of her constituency given by the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths). When I gave my maiden speech, I spoke about an important brewery in my constituency, so I feel some affinity towards what I value in my constituency and the breweries of Burton. I congratulate everyone on their maiden speeches today.

Since becoming an MP, the Environment Bill is the piece of legislation that I have been contacted about by more of my constituents than any other. The constituents who have been in touch recognise the urgency to act and the opportunity that this Bill offers to make a real difference. The Government could take decisive action through the Bill to protect the environment. However, as currently drafted, the Bill misses this vital chance to act at a crucial moment.

The Bill proposes to replace the EU’s comprehensive framework of environmental protections with long-term targets over which the Secretary of State has nearly complete discretion to change at any time. Alongside that, the new Office for Environmental Protection that the Bill establishes is not, as we have heard many times today, fully independent from Government, and lacks the strong enforcement powers it would need for us to be certain of its effectiveness. It is hard to disagree with Greenpeace UK’s assessment that Ministers have just given themselves a licence to fail.

We have the opportunity to widen the Bill’s ambition and strengthen its approach, and it is vital that we do so to ensure that this chance to set us on the right course for many years to come is not squandered. I urge the Government to listen to calls from my constituents and many others to strengthen the Bill—to ensure that it strengthens and certainly does not lower existing levels of environmental protection in future laws and policies; that future Governments are legally compelled to take action to meet long-term targets for the recovery of nature and the environment; and that the new Office for Environmental Protection is truly independent and can hold the Government and public bodies to account over environmental commitments.

Alongside those general principles, my constituents have also contacted me about specific areas of the Bill that need strengthening, such as provisions on deforestation, oceans and air quality. I urge Ministers to listen to their voices and to those of environmental groups on such crucial issues.

First, my constituents want specific targets to end deforestation in the production of commodities, including food, that the UK imports. Mass deforestation is accelerating climate change and is a leading cause of wildlife extinction. We must take responsibility for the impact of our actions around the world, yet the Bill does not currently address the UK’s role in harming nature overseas.

Secondly, my constituents want the Bill to do more to protect the oceans, including through legally binding targets on plastic pollution and through measures to reduce how much plastic is produced and consumed. We are still waiting for the Government to take the promised action on that front, and the Bill makes no firm commitment to prevent the exporting of waste which can lead to plastic littering our seas around the world.

Thirdly, my constituents want a firm approach on tackling poor air quality. It affects everyone, but it has been felt acutely in recent years by many people living in Ealing North and across London. Poor air quality stunts the development of children’s lungs, which everyone will agree is a truly awful legacy to leave the next generation. Of the 650 constituencies, in 2018 Ealing North had the 41st-worst concentration level of the harmful pollutant PM_2.5. Particulate matter affects everyone and means that people living with heart or circulatory conditions are at a higher risk of a heart attack or stroke. It is time for the Government to step up and help my constituents and people across the country.

Decisive action can make a difference, as the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan is showing here in London. The Mayor has been taking a lead on cleaning up the capital’s air, including by introducing the ultra low emission zone. In 2016, air at the Hanger Lane gyratory monitoring station, which is just outside my constituency in Ealing Central and Acton, exceeded the hourly legal limit for nitrogen dioxide for a total of 45 hours. Last year, that had fallen to just two hours—a drop of 95%. I give that example because it shows that change is possible. The Government have an opportunity to make it clear that clean air is a priority. They can give the Mayor and councils, including mine in Ealing, the resources they need to go further in tackling poor air quality, and they can use this Bill to commit to introducing higher standards nationwide. As we have already heard, the current legal air quality limits for England are less stringent than the World Health Organisation’s guidelines. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to adopt World Health Organisation limits and to make a real difference to the quality of our air.

We know urgent action is needed to respond to our climate and environmental emergency. The Environment Bill provides an opportunity to do so, yet the Government appear to be doing all they can to resist solid protections and to avoid introducing standards that are equivalent to, or better than, those in EU regulations. That should set alarm bells ringing on the Government’s approach to post-Brexit regulation generally, and it is an immediate and urgent concern that means we risk missing the moment to set high environmental standards as we face the coming decade.

On behalf of my constituents who have contacted me, of all those around the world who are affected by our actions and of the future generations who will be impacted by the decisions we take, I urge the Government to seize this chance to show true global leadership on protecting our environment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Jane Stevenson to make her maiden speech.

Flood Response

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

I am happy to reiterate my support and thanks to those involved in the relief effort in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. On getting ex-offenders involved in such programmes, I should note that much of this work is quite specialist, so I am not sure how that would work, but I welcome her suggestion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the conversation I had with her yesterday as I was inspecting flood damage in Ribchester and Whalley in the Ribble Valley. I am extremely grateful.

Bills Presented

[Mr Speaker]

As the House can see, we have a good many Bills to be presented today. In order to save time and so that we can get on with today’s main business, I will accept private notice of the dates of the Second Readings. Those dates will be minuted accordingly in Hansard and Votes and Proceedings.

Anxiety in Schools (Environmental Concerns) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for guidance to schools about reducing anxiety about environmental concerns among pupils and staff; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 30).

Decarbonisation of Road Transport (Audit) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for independent audits of the costs and benefits of the decarbonisation of road transport, and of the regulation of the sale and production of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 31).

Net Zero Carbon Emissions (Audit) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for an independent audit of the costs and benefits of meeting the requirement under the Climate Change Act 2008 for net United Kingdom carbon emissions to be zero by 2050; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 32).

Anxiety (Environmental Concerns) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to reduce anxiety about environmental concerns among the general population; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 33).

Housing Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to amend Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 to provide that any selective licensing scheme for residential accommodation extends to social housing.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 34).

Caravan Sites Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to amend the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 to remove planning permission requirements for caravan site licence applicants; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 35).

Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 36).

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to limit exit payments made by public sector organisations to employees; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 37).

Student Loans (Debt Interest) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to limit the rate of interest chargeable on outstanding student loan debt; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 38).

Local Authorities (Removal of Council Tax Restrictions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for the removal of restrictions on principal local authorities in England to set levels of council tax; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 39).

Healthcare (Local Accountability) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the local accountability of clinical commissioning groups; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 40).

Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to require persons bringing claims or proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 to satisfy a test of reasonableness and equity; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 41).

Public Service Broadcasters (Privatisation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation and Channel 4; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 42).

BBC Licence Fee (Civil Penalty) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Sir Mike Penning and Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 43).

Tax Rates and Duties (Review) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to require the Government to publish an annual review of the net yield to HM Treasury of tax rates and duties levied, including estimates of the impact on yield of changes to rates of those taxes and duties; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 44).

National Health Service (Co-Funding and Co-Payment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for co-funding and for the extension of co-payment for NHS services in England; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed (Bill 45).

Value Added Tax Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to enable the maximum turnover threshold for exemption from the requirement to register for VAT to be raised; to make provision for the exemption of certain goods and services from liability to VAT; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 46).

Deregulation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals; to make provision for the repeal or amendment of regulations; to make provision about the exercise of regulatory powers and functions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 47).

Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed (Bill 48).

Border Control Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about requirements for non-UK citizens seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom; to make provision about a process for the removal from the United Kingdom of non-UK citizens, in certain circumstances and on the basis of established criteria; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed (Bill 49).

Foreign Nationals (Criminal Offender and Prisoner Removal) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the removal from the United Kingdom of foreign national criminal offenders and prisoners; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed (Bill 50).

Free Trade (Education and Reporting) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to impose duties relating to the provision of public education on free trade; to require regular reports from government on trade arrangements with other countries; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 51).

International Development Assistance (Definition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the definition of international development assistance; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 52).

Schools Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to enable schools to select pupils on the basis of published criteria; to allow schools to determine maximum class sizes; to remove restrictions on the expansion of the number of pupils in schools and on the creation of new schools; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 53).

Bat Habitats Regulation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision to limit the protection for bat habitats in the built environment where the presence of bats has a significant adverse impact upon the users of buildings; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 54).

Green Belt Protection Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to establish a national register of green belt land in England; to restrict the ability of local authorities to de-designate green belt land; to make provision about future development of de-designated green belt land; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 55).

International Payments (Audit) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision to require cost-benefit analysis and independent audit before payments are made by the Government to a foreign country or international organisation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 56).

Local Authorities (Borrowing and Investment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the acquisition of land and property by local authorities in England outside their own local authority boundaries; to limit the power of local authorities to invest in commercial risk-taking enterprises; to limit public borrowing by local authorities for non-core activities; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 57).

Benefits and Public Services (Restriction) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens to publicly-funded benefits and services; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 58).

Public Services (Availability) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the availability of public services during weekday evenings, at weekends and on bank holidays; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 59).

Working Time and Holiday Pay Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the expiration of the Working Time Regulations 1998; to provide for regulations governing working time; to make provision about holiday pay for employees; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 60).

Local Roads (Investment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the maintenance and repair of roads by local authorities in England; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 61).

Electronic Cigarettes (Regulation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the sale and use of electronic cigarettes; to exempt electronic cigarettes from UK law derived from the Tobacco Products Directive; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 62).

Mobile Homes and Park Homes Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to require the use of published criteria to determine whether mobile homes and park homes are liable for council tax or non-domestic rates; to make provision in relation to the residential status of such homes; to amend the Mobile Home Acts; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 63).

Sublet Property (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make the breach of certain rules relating to sub-letting rented accommodation a criminal offence; to make provision for criminal sanctions in respect of unauthorised sub-letting; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 64).

Student Loans (Debt Discharge) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the forgiveness or discharge of student loan debt in certain circumstances; to make provision about the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 65).

Stamp Duty Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the reduction of stamp duty rates on residential property.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 66).

Speed Limits (England) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to prohibit permanent derogations from a 30 mile per hour speed limit in built-up areas in England; to make provision for the circumstances in which speed limits below 30 miles per hour may be introduced; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 67).

Judicial Appointments and Retirements (Age Limits) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to repeal provisions for the compulsory retirement of holders of judicial office on the grounds of age; to remove upper age limits for appointment to judicial office; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 68).

Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to reduce Value Added Tax on domestic energy bills; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 69).

Criminal Fraud (Private Prosections) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about private prosecutions in cases of suspected criminal fraud in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 70).

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Sir Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March 2020, and to be printed (Bill 71).

Voter Registration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Nigel Mills, Henry Smith, presented a Bill to prohibit persons from being registered to vote in Parliamentary elections at more than one address; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 15 May and to be printed (Bill 72).

Hospitals (Parking Charges and Business Rates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Philip Davies and Henry Smith, presented a Bill to prohibit charging for car parking at NHS Hospitals for patients and visitors; to make provision for NHS Hospitals to be exempt from business rates; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 73).

General Election (Leaders' Debates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to set up a commission to make arrangements for debates between leaders of political parties during a General Election; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 74).

Prime Minister (Temporary Replacement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Philip Davies, Henry Smith and Nigel Mills, presented a Bill to make provision for the carrying out of the functions of the Prime Minister in the event that a Prime Minister, or a person temporarily carrying out the functions of the Prime Minister, is incapacitated; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 75).

Prime Minister (Accountability to the House of Commons) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to impose duties on the Prime Minister relating to accountability to the House of Commons; to require the Prime Minister to be available to answer questions in that House on at least two occasions during a sitting week except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 76).

British Broadcasting Corporation (Oversight) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Henry Smith and Nigel Mills, presented a Bill to create an independent body to monitor broadcasting impartiality at the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 77).

Homeless People (Current Accounts) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Philip Davies and Sir Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to require banks to provide current accounts for homeless people seeking work; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 78).

Electoral Candidates (Age) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to allow a person who is age 18 or older on the day of a parliamentary or local election to stand as a candidate; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 79).

Child Safety (Cycle Helmets) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Sir Christopher Chope and Nigel Mills, presented a Bill to require children under 16 to wear a safety helmet when riding a bicycle on a public highway; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 80).

Human Trafficking (Child Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Sir Christopher Chope and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of secure safe houses for children that have been subject to human trafficking; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 81).

Isham Bypass Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to impose duties relating to the completion of the Isham Bypass; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October, and to be printed (Bill 82).

North Northamptonshire (Urgent Care Facilities) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision about the restructuring of urgent care facilities in North Northamptonshire; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October, and to be printed (Bill 83).

Local Government (Governance) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bone, supported by Sir Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to require local authorities to operate a committee system of internal governance; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October, and to be printed (Bill 84).

Evictions (Universal Credit Claimants) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent the evictions of Universal Credit claimants in rent arrears; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 85).

Universal Credit Sanctions (Zero Hours Contracts) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Chris Stephens, presented a Bill to amend the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to provide that a Universal Credit claimant may not be sanctioned for refusing work on a zero hours contract; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 86).

Asylum Seekers (Accommodation Eviction Procedures) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for asylum seekers to challenge the proportionality of a proposed eviction from accommodation before an independent court or tribunal; to establish asylum seeker accommodation eviction procedures for public authorities; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 87).

Agriculture Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who represents a part of the country that I have been to with my family and that we very much enjoyed. More importantly, it has been really helpful to learn how to eat scones, making sure that we do the cream first. I am sure that she will continue to make excellent contributions for her constituency in this place.

I welcome the changes made to the Bill relating to the importance of soil and the plans to assist farmers, but the Bill is not robust enough and remains vague on key areas of importance. It provides many powers but very few duties for the Secretary of State to take action, and for a Bill on food production it remains remarkably vague on food. It is silent on action to reduce food poverty and there are no provisions to promote healthy foods. It is also a missed opportunity to provide a much clearer priority in respect of food sustainability. In the world’s sixth richest country, no one should be going hungry. Food is a basic human right, but the Government’s welfare policies have seen food bank usage rise, and continue to rise. The climate crisis and reckless post-Brexit trade deals could make food insecurity even worse.

I pay tribute to the volunteers who work so hard for the food banks in my constituency, including the Trussell Trust and the Whitefoot and Downham Community Food+ Project, which I founded to meet the increasing demand for food in my community. It is shocking that there are now more food banks than ever throughout the country. The latest figures from the Trussell Trust show that in 2018-19 there was an 18.8% increase in the number of emergency food parcels distributed, compared with the previous year. That is shocking. It is shocking that there are now more food banks than ever before across our country and in particular that children are in food poverty. Clause 17 requires a five-yearly report on food poverty, but the first report is, coincidentally, timed to be after the next election. That is not good enough. We do not need more talk and inaction. We need a robust plan to tackle food poverty head-on and to end food banks completely.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Anthony Browne to give his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The time limit is five minutes with immediate effect. I call Tim Farron.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have less than an hour before the wind-ups, and I still have 17 names on my list. If Members can make their speech in less than five minutes, they will help not to squeeze out somebody else—so no pressure at all on Fiona Bruce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. After Nadia Whittome’s contribution, I will try to get everyone else in, but I am afraid that there will then be a three-minute speaking limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have just about half an hour, so Members may have three minutes each. If anyone takes any interventions, they will be pushing one of their colleagues off the edge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)]

As part of the all-party group on skills, I shall practise the skill of squeezing an eight-minute speech into three.

In leaving the EU, we have the opportunity to rewrite the book on agricultural policy, and rewrite it we have; this Bill is potentially the biggest victory for nature in a generation. Farmland occupies more than 70% of the UK’s landmass, and with more than 450,000 farmers in the UK, it is vital that we recognise the stark benefits that this Bill has over the CAP. It means that farmers are rid of the old, ineffectual direct payments system, which meant that some of our largest producers may actually have ended up worse off. The CAP’s method of rewarding farmers on the basis of land size unsustainably increases rents and land costs, while forcing farmers to use as much land as possible for production. Put simply, a farmer who gets funding on the basis of land size will cover their land in crops, whereas one who gets funding on the basis of their contribution to a better environment can use parts of their land to allow wildlife and natural habitats to grow; agriculture is, sadly, a contributor to biodiversity loss.

The “State of Nature” report by the National Trust found that 41% of species have experienced decline since 1970 and about a third of wild bee populations are decreasing, much to the frustration of my constituent Jonathan Thomas, who has a business producing local honey. Jon got in touch with me recently regarding this Bill, in the hope that it would produce a fairer system for farmers that incentivised them to promote biodiversity and assist in stemming the tide of this massive loss of bees.

I am sure we can all agree, perhaps some slightly more than others, that British food is among the best in the world, and people recognise that globally. We are opening up a new world of opportunities. Now that we can trade on our own terms and are no longer bound by Brussels, those on the world stage who see the results of what our farmers can do will flock to us for their carrots, peas and sprouts, and of course our wonderful Welsh lamb. They will see the UK as the agricultural giant that we in this country know we are. This Bill removes the restrictions on our farming and offers more money—the right money—to our farmhands.

With all this in mind, it is vital that any future trade deals that we have complement this Bill and allow us to both grow and import food to our own standards. As our soil quality and animal welfare standards increase, so does the quality of our foods and our meats. Do we not then deserve to have a like-for-like selection when we trade with other nations? Is it fair that our farmers are to put in the work and the effort to produce the best they possibly can when some of our trading partners are not meeting the commitments that we require of our own? All things that belong in future trade deals—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, but we must move on.