Oral Answers to Questions
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Last week, the Prime Minister’s flagship Rwanda Bill was defeated 10 times in the House of Lords, with calls for the UK Government to protect victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being removed to Rwanda without their consent until a decision, based on conclusive grounds, about their safety and not being placed at risk of being re-trafficked has been completed. Does the Solicitor General not understand that modern slavery protections for vulnerable children and adults appear to be expendable under his Government?
The Solicitor General
The Bill will be coming back to the Commons next week, when there will be an opportunity to debate those issues further. However, I point out that the treaty between the Government of Rwanda and the UK includes specific provisions that address the need for protection and support for victims of trafficking.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Food price inflation remains twice as high as general inflation in the UK, and the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit warns that it could rise even higher next year. What assessment has the Secretary of State made, with his colleagues, of the impact of soaring food prices on those we represent?
Mark Spencer
Of course, we continue to monitor food price inflation and work with the sector to reduce it as much as possible. We co-operate with not only farmers, processors and retailers, but all those involved in the sector to try to make sure that we provide a reasonably priced food basket for our constituents. The good news is that the cost of our food basket in the UK is lower than that found in many parts of the European Union.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Journalists and bloggers who criticise the Government are arrested, threatened and put on trial, with allegations of torture, disappearances and suspicious deaths. Those are just some of the issues that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have reported on in Rwanda. When asking Parliament to disregard established legal principles such as the burden of proof and the need for evidence, is the Attorney General genuinely comfortable in passing the Rwanda Bill?
The Attorney General
It is constitutionally proper for Parliament to legislate in response to a decision of the Supreme Court. We do it all the time in the finance and tax space. Lord Reed was careful to point out to the Constitution Committee in the other House that we did it following the Burmah oil case in the War Damage Act 1965. In this case, I urge the hon. Lady to look hard at the evidence that the Government put before the House on 11 January. If the Bill passes, everyone must treat Rwanda as generally safe for the transfer of individuals under the treaty.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Attorney General has rightly said that international accountability for Russia’s actions in Ukraine is very important. She will also be aware that some deep concerns have been expressed that Russia may be exploiting the very volatile and fragile situation in Israel and Palestine, with its reportedly close links with Hamas and accusations of facilitating international terrorism. Does she share those concerns, and what efforts does she think the international community can take to counter that?
The Attorney General
The UK has a strong track record of supporting international law, and we ask that our friends and partners do the same. It is clear to us that all parties should abide by international law. It was very much brought home to me in that room in The Hague that Russia and Ukraine have not been in many rooms together during the past 18 months, but a courtroom brought them to the same place, and that shows the power of international law.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister has talked a lot about support for farmers, but in reality there is a severe lack of profitability for those producing chicken. That is causing a sharp reduction in the number of birds reared in England, while in Scotland production has changed significantly, as retailers resist demands to pay a fair price for chicken. Will the Minister commit to extending the examination of food supply chains to poultry meat, as requested by the National Farmers Union Scotland, as the threat of empty shelves looms? Will he also engage with retailers to ensure that poultry farmers are fairly compensated?
Mark Spencer
I was on a poultry farm yesterday talking to poultry producers. The SNP cannot have it both ways; it cannot ask one question about suppressing prices for consumers and another about increasing the prices for farmers—those things are diametrically opposed. What we are doing as a Department is supporting those farmers through the £2.4 billion-worth of subsidy, helping them to invest in new technology and talking to retailers and producers to make sure we get fairness in the supply chain, so everybody gets a fair return for their hard work.
The Solicitor General
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for raising this case. He is a great champion for Stoke-on-Trent. He will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but it is right to say that the threshold or test for undue leniency is a high one. In the vast majority of cases the Crown court judges get the sentence right, and the Court of Appeal will grant permission only in exceptional circumstances.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
We have sent our most experienced international judge, Sir Howard Morrison, to train more than 100 Ukrainian judges. I met some of them earlier this year in Kyiv with him. Next week, we have a delegation of Ukrainian officials in the UK for prosecutorial training.
Patricia Gibson
The International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression was launched in The Hague this week with the backing of the EU, the US and the International Criminal Court, collecting data, interviewing victims and building evidence files to assist both international and national prosecutors to bring criminals to justice for the invasion of Ukraine. In addition to what the Attorney General has already said, what further practical steps will she take to support the centre, and assist and support international efforts to gather evidence of war crimes committed in Ukraine?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I would be delighted to pick this up with her outside the Chamber if she would like more detail on the work we are doing. I work very closely with the Ukrainian prosecutor general, Andriy Kostin. His team are currently investigating and prosecuting 92,000 open war crimes cases during a conflict—something that is unprecedented. We are providing help at every level, including prosecutorial and evidence-gathering help. We are a keen part of the atrocity crimes advisory group. We have been training judges. We are keen to help with the wider accountability question on the international stage as well. At all levels, we are absolutely determined to help our friends in Ukraine.
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Trudy Harrison
I certainly do. I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. There can be nobody more qualified and experienced in animal welfare than a vet, and he speaks with such sense.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Trudy Harrison
I will just make some progress.
I will set out what has been achieved since 2010, with a wide range of valuable reforms that make a difference to animal welfare: implementing a revised welfare at slaughter regime and introducing CCTV in all slaughterhouses; banning traditional battery cages for laying hens and permitting beak trimming only by infrared technology; and raising standards for meat chickens. We have significantly enhanced companion animal welfare by revamping the local authority licencing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate in this debate, although I honestly wish it was not necessary—and it ought not to have been necessary. I and the SNP support the Opposition day motion.
Two years ago, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was introduced. The UK Government made a commitment to improve animal welfare, and we in the SNP supported that. Now, three DEFRA Secretaries of State and three Prime Ministers later, we are not one step forward. We are exactly where we were three years ago on banning foie gras imports, which the Minister noticeably did not mention; we are exactly where we were two years ago on banning animal fur imports, which the Minister did not mention; and we are exactly where we were two years ago on tackling illegal puppy and kitten smuggling. That is why my SNP colleagues and I support the motion for the measures in the Bill to proceed.
As the Minister has conceded, there were a lot of important provisions in the original Bill. It has now been quietly dropped, and we are told that the Government will take forward individual measures. I understand that those will be private Members’ Bills—I thought that Governments were elected to govern, but apparently not. We are meant to be convinced by that display, but why should we believe it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on that point about private Member’s Bills. I was pleased to support the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on trophy hunting imports, which is currently in the other place. However, I met campaigners just yesterday who are very concerned that, due to machinations in the other place, the Bill will run out of time and never reach the statute book. Is that what we are to expect on animal welfare from this Government?
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Lady tempts me on to my next point. The Minister—ludicrously, despite her protestations—cannot tell us which provisions in the original Bill will not be brought forward as individual measures now that it has been dropped. I would really like her to tell us what measures the Government will not proceed with, how the priority list will be decided and when we will see the measures the Government are so keen to bring to this House—by whatever circuitous route. Will anything be presented before summer recess? Will we get through that priority list, such as it might be, before the next general election?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend very much for the point she is making. With every twist and turn in the farce around this Bill, I get letters and emails from concerned constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that it really does undermine the faith that many constituents have in democracy that the Government promised a Bill and had a Bill, and that we have lots of Government time and business collapsing early, yet no Bill is coming forward?
Patricia Gibson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and leads me on to my next point. We know that people right across the UK really care about animal welfare—all we have to do is give our inbox the most cursory of glances to see that. The people who write to us, email us and contact us on this issue will be deeply concerned about the antics—that is what they are—of the Government today as they twist on their own line. The Government have blamed everyone else, arguing that this Bill has been dropped because it had become too broad in scope, beyond what was originally intended.
The reality is that this Government are crumbling in the face of opposition from certain sections among their Back Benchers—the same kind of Back Benchers who were vociferously opposed to a ban on importing foie gras and fur products—as highlighted most eloquently by the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg). The UK Government do not want to engage in a fight with their own Back Benchers, despite these measures being in their manifesto. Foie gras production and fur farms were banned in the UK because of the cruelty they inflicted on living creatures, but this Government are perfectly content to outsource cruelty, which is political in itself, to appease some sections of their Back Benchers. This is truly shameful, and the Government may wish to reflect on it.
We know this is the case due to the very frank comments of the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who predicted in February that the animal welfare commitments in this Bill would be shelved, and he turned out to be right. It is worth reminding the House of what he was reported as saying:
“‘The way we treat animals, in particular farmed animals, is a hallmark of a civilized society and you should be constantly striving to do better,’ he says of the legislation that bans primates as pets, outlaws live exports and further regulates puppy farming.
Officially the government is still committed to the Bill…but the former environment secretary says he is hearing ‘mixed signals’ about whether it will, in fact, pass into law before the next election which must be held by the end of next year.
‘My sense is that they’re putting less emphasis on animal welfare, which I think is a shame.’”
We know the measures proposed in this Bill have huge public support. He continued:
“‘The annoying thing for me would be if the kept animal bill now also doesn’t go ahead because of a lack of resolve to take it through.’”
Interestingly, he refers to a “lack of resolve.”
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting out what is really happening here, because we know there is not only broad support for this Bill in the country but massive, overwhelming support for it in the House of Commons. It was introduced here, we supported it and now it has been shelved. That has more to do with the politics on the Government side of the House than animal welfare, doe it not?
Patricia Gibson
Indeed. It also tells us about the Conservative Back Benchers who rally around the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, who has been a busy boy.
The Minister can wriggle all she likes on the proverbial hook about individual measures and suchlike, but the fact is that the Government’s resolve to proceed with the Bill, as set out by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, has broken for fear it might upset some of their Back Benchers, who have fewer concerns about animal welfare than the people they purport to represent.
As for the Government’s so-called position of ditching this Bill and introducing individual measures, where is the timetable? The Minister stood up to defend the fact that the Government will be bringing forward various measures, but there is no timetable, no detail and no priority list. Nothing. Clearly banning the importing of foie gras and animal fur and making real efforts to tackle puppy smuggling are off the table. We do not know if we will get anything before the summer recess. What we are left with are the shattered remains of what was a perfectly decent and comprehensive Bill.
This Bill largely relates to England, but its UK-wide elements are extremely important and they show where Scotland is being held back on animal welfare. The dropping of this Bill also means that the plans to ban live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through the UK, which all the major parties supported and which appeared in each of the manifestos in 2019, have also been dropped. That move was described by Compassion in World Farming as an unacceptable backtracking on animal welfare commitments, allowing this trade to continue.
It gives me no pleasure to say that the dropping of this Bill must be a cause of celebration for ruthless puppy or kitten smugglers—both of those trades are lucrative in their own right and there are insufficient deterrents to the barbaric practice. The dropping of this Bill must also have been good news for those who import foie gras and animal fur products into the UK. The dropping of this Bill is a depressing day for those who genuinely care about animal welfare. For all the fights that the UK Government like to pick with the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government passed legislative consent for this Bill. It seems that even when they agree with the UK Government, the UK Government then decide to disagree with themselves.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The hon. Lady is correctly outlining the deficits and the broken promises. She may be aware that Northern Ireland has even less legislation on animal rights. The Assembly even rejected an attempt to ban hunting with dogs and we have made no progress on issues such as having a register of banned welfare abusers and banning the online sale of puppies. She speaks about the UK-wide provisions. Does she agree that the House now has an opportunity to bring in progressive and far-reaching legislation that would even pick up the slack in regions such as ours, which are without governance?
Patricia Gibson
Indeed. What I find really distressing is that in Scotland we have come so far on animal welfare, only to find that we are shackled to this dead hand of a Government who refuse to act because they are paralysed by their own internal divisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Patricia Gibson
I am making some progress.
Meanwhile, Scotland, under the SNP, continues to be a beacon across the UK and Europe on animal rights, with the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021 and the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023. In its Programme for Government, the SNP implemented the majority of recommendations on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 and further measures on preventing trail hunting.
Patricia Gibson
No.
The SNP is consulting on proposals to improve animal transport legislation and to phase out cages for game birds and laying hens, and farrowing crates for pigs; it is consulting on legislation to extend the framework for the licensing of activities involving animals to new areas such as performing animals and animal care services; it is considering whether the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should have extra legislative powers to investigate wildlife crime; and it is reviewing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to inform future policy and legislative changes to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. Last year, it became a legal requirement for puppy, kitten and rabbit breeders to be licensed. There is ongoing work with the Animal Welfare Committee to examine issues associated with sheep castration and tail docking. This very week, highland cats are being reintroduced to the wild, and work will be undertaken over the next three years to save the species from extinction. The SNP is also examining the use of acoustic deterrent devices in salmon farming, as well as the issue of e-collars.
I could go on, but I fear that I am showing off now. I am showing the contrast between two Governments, a Government who are ambitious—
Patricia Gibson
The answer is no.
One of those Governments is ambitious, progressive and keen, as a mark—as the former DEFRA Secretary said—of how civilised Scotland is on these matters. However, we are shackled to a corpse who will not act and cannot act. I merely point out the dithering of the UK Government when it comes to delivering on their own promises in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. They do not even have the confidence to deliver their own manifesto commitments and the very Bill they brought to the House.
By contrast, only this week, Christine Grahame MSP introduced a Bill to the Scottish Parliament to tackle unlicensed puppy farming, establishing a code of practice for the buying and selling of dogs in Scotland. Meanwhile, in Scotland, we are forced to twiddle our thumbs waiting for this Government to implement their own measures on puppy farming.
Patricia Gibson
People will read little about what I have just said in the media, but the Scottish Government are absolutely committed to the highest animal welfare standards, indeed exceeding EU regulations.
Patricia Gibson
The UK Government’s work compares very poorly with the excellent work being done in Scotland, but where we in Scotland are reliant on the UK Government, in reserved areas, we are held back. Of course, that extends way beyond animal welfare, but I will not go into that.
I recall the nonsense we were told during the Brexit campaign about how Brexit would allow improved animal welfare standards, even outstripping EU standards, because we would be liberated to move at a faster pace of improvement. But this Government cannot move beyond that—they cannot even move beyond the width of their own Back Benchers. They are terrified of their own Members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Lady has made it abundantly plain that she is not giving way. It would be good if we could inject just a few of the normal courtesies into the debate.
Patricia Gibson
I am merely extending the same courtesy that was shown to me by the Minister.
The former Secretary of State for DEFRA, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), was right; everybody in the Chamber knows that he was right. The way we treat animals, in particular farmed animals, is a hallmark of a civilized society. Everyone who is watching can see what dropping this Bill tells us about this Government, and what we can conclude about how civilised they are when we compare and contrast their record on animal welfare with that of the Scottish Government.
The Bill was a significant moment in our progress towards improving animal welfare across the UK, but dropping it is out of step with what we know our constituents want and what we know is right. That is why I would support any motion to have the provisions of the original Bill passed through the House. Dropping the Bill shows that the Government are in retreat. They are out of ideas and have lost any semblance of moral authority. They have a Prime Minister who is afraid to proceed with his own legislation, despite it being in his manifesto, for fear of upsetting some of his notable Back Benchers.
The UK Government are a shrinking, lily-livered, weak-kneed, base, husk of a shell of a Government; they have lost their way and their purpose. Dropping the Bill is symptomatic of that. Animal welfare will pay the price. To tell this House that the Bill has been ditched and that the Government will bring forward individual provisions, covering what was in the Bill, simply does not ring true. Quite frankly, it is a lot of nonsense.
We need to ensure that the important provisions in the original Bill, which the UK Government are too preoccupied and too cowardly to proceed with themselves, are allowed to progress through the House. That is why we in the SNP support the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I appreciate that this is a sensitive and contentious issue, but we do ourselves no favours and no service by ignoring the conventions and courtesies of the House. I would like to see if we can inject a little more good temper into the tone of the debate.
That said, we have 22 Members still seeking to take part. I will put an immediate five-minute time limit on speeches. If there are a lot of interventions, as there have been in the past, then that will swiftly drop to four or even three minutes. Given the number of Members who wish to take part, I am afraid that is where we find ourselves.
World Ocean Day
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing forward this important debate. It has become something of an annual event to have a debate that coincides with World Ocean Day on 8 June, and it follows, as we have heard, from a recent debate on the impact of plastic in our oceans.
This year’s theme is “Planet Ocean: Tides are Changing”. The tides may well be changing, because experts warn us that we are reaching a tipping point that will bring devastating and dramatic consequences for mankind with regards to our oceans. The purpose of World Ocean Day is
“to inform the public of the impact of human actions on the ocean, develop a worldwide movement of citizens for the ocean, and mobilize and unite the world’s population on a project for the sustainable management of the world’s oceans.”
This day reminds us all of the major role that oceans play in our everyday lives. They are the lungs of our planet, a major source of food and medicine, and a critical part of our biosphere. The ocean covers the majority of the Earth, but only a small portion of its waters have actually been explored. Despite humanity’s utter reliance on it, and compared to the breadth and depth of what it gives us, the ocean receives only a fragment of our attention and resources in return. That surely has to change.
The latest estimates from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation warn that more than half of the world’s marine species may stand on the brink of extinction by 2100. Temperatures have increased by 1.1°C, and an estimated 60% of the world’s marine ecosystems have already been degraded or are being used unsustainably. Warming of 1.5°C threatens to destroy 70% to 90% of coral reefs, and a 2°C increase means a near 100% loss—a point of no return.
The ocean occupies over 70% of the planet’s surface area and produces at least 50% of the world’s oxygen. It is a hugely significant force in mitigating climate change. Despite that, its role is most often considered as passive rather than active, but it has a significant role to play in slowing down the rate of climate change. Since 1978, over 90% of Earth’s increased heat and 40% of carbon from fossil fuels have been absorbed by the ocean. In addition, it is predicted that the ocean has absorbed between 30% and 50% of all carbon dioxide emissions caused by human activity, which makes it the biggest carbon sink in the world, as we have heard today.
I want to talk about ocean acidification. When CO2 dissolves in sea water, the water becomes more acidic. The acidity of our oceans has increased by 26% since about 1850, and staggeringly, the pace of change is around 10 times faster than at any time in the last 155 million years.
Ocean acidification reduces the amount of carbonate, which is a key building block in sea water. That makes it more difficult for marine organisms such as coral and some plankton to form their shells and skeletons and existing shells may begin to dissolve. The present-day pH of sea water is highly variable and a single organism can cope with fluctuations of different pH levels during its lifetime. The problem with ocean acidification is the sustained nature of the change, as the risk comes with the lifetime exposure to lower pH levels. Further, the rapid pace of acidification will influence the extent to which calcifying organisms will be able to adapt.
The impact of ocean acidification is not uniform across all species, but a more acidic environment will harm marine species such as molluscs, corals and some other varieties. Marine organisms could also experience changes in growth, development, abundance and survival in response to ocean acidification. Most species seem to be more vulnerable in the early stages of life. Juvenile fish, for example, may have trouble locating a suitable habitat. Research suggests that ocean acidification will also be a driver for substantial changes in ocean ecosystems this century. Those changes may be made worse by the combined effects of other emerging climate-related hazards, such as the decrease in ocean oxygen levels—a condition known as ocean deoxygenation—which is already affecting marine life in some regions. Ocean acidification also has the potential to affect food security, coastal protection, tourism, carbon storage and climate regulation because more acidic oceans are less effective in moderating climate change. To reduce the impact of ocean acidification, we need to improve our air quality, develop sustainable fisheries management practices and sustainably manage habitats, as well as establishing and maintaining marine protected areas, about which we have heard a lot today. Currently, only around 8% of our oceans are protected. We need to do more, but on a global and international basis.
A recent YouGov survey of 1,696 adults found that almost three quarters of people in the UK say ocean life needs more protection. At this juncture, I wish to pay tribute to Sir David Attenborough, whose “Blue Planet” programmes brought the ocean world into our living rooms and showed us the wonders and the beauty of our oceans in such an educational and breathtaking way. He also warned us that the living world cannot operate without a healthy ocean—nor can we. The ocean may connect, sustain and support us all, but, according to the UN,
“its health is at a tipping point and so is the well-being of all that depends on it.”
The UN hopes World Ocean Day will help inform the public of human actions on the ocean and develop a worldwide movement to protect it and unite the world in seeking to sustainably manage our oceans, making this is an important day on the global calendar.
I will end with the wise words of Sir David Attenborough:
“Nowhere is more powerful and unforgiving, yet more beautiful and endlessly fascinating than the ocean.”
It is time we act globally in a way that shows we understand how important our oceans are and stop taking them for granted.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Last week’s most vaunted Farm to Fork Summit, from which the Scottish Government were excluded, was described as an “empty meeting” by food and farming industry representatives, with no action on price or food inflation discussed, and one that
“did not touch on the fundamental problems of food price inflation”.
In addition, Ministers offered no commitment in response to a call by the National Farmers Union to stop Britain’s self-sufficiency in food slipping below its current level of 6%. Does the Minister agree with the National Farmers Union’s assessment of the summit? If not, what concrete outcomes does he think it achieved on food price reduction?
Mark Spencer
I do not know whether the hon. Lady lives in a different universe, because the NFU welcomed the food summit. It requested it and it was grateful that it took place. It was a huge success, pulling together retailers, processers and primary producers to get under the skin of the challenges that we face as a country. We will solve those challenges by working together. Many people celebrated that Farm to Fork Summit, as should she, rather than criticising it.
Plastic Pollution in the Ocean
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Again we are debating the huge and growing threat of plastic pollution in our oceans. According to Recycle Track Systems:
“There is an estimated 75 to 199 million tons of plastic waste currently in our oceans, with a further 33 billion pounds of plastic entering the marine environment every single year. This constant flow of plastic production is simply too much for existing waste management and recycling infrastructure.”
Plastic makes up 85% of all marine pollution, and unless we reduce the amount of plastic waste we produce, it is simply impossible to meaningfully tackle this shocking and dangerous situation.
Fishing equipment makes up a huge quantity of marine plastic waste—currently 20%—and, at current rates, will be enough to coat the entire planet in just 65 years. Plastic pollution harms animal health disproportionately and impacts on the ecosystems of developing countries. It is estimated that across the UK, 5 million tonnes of plastic are used every year, around half of which is packaging and half of which is not successfully recycled, with only around 9% of global plastics recycled each year. Plastic waste often does not decompose and can last for centuries in landfill or end up as litter in the natural environment, which in turn pollutes soils, rivers and oceans, and harms the creatures that inhabit them.
We know that the scale of this problem is huge. It is a daunting and global challenge, but we can mitigate our throwaway culture, and the best way to reduce the amount of plastic entering our oceans is to reduce plastic waste.
Margaret Ferrier
The plastic polluting our oceans can largely be attributed to single-use takeaway items. However, such products are often relied on for food hygiene purposes. Does the hon. Member agree that we must work to establish a valid alternative to single-use takeaway items that meets food hygiene standards?
Patricia Gibson
Yes. The hon. Lady tempts me, because I will say more about that in a moment.
Recycle Track Systems says:
“There are numerous initiatives to curb ocean plastic pollution at any one time, including everything from grassroots beach clean-ups to international agreements. One of the recent changes is the United Nations Environment Assembly’s agreement in March 2022 to develop a legally binding treaty to bring plastic pollution to an end. It will still be years in the making but is a considerable step forward according to many. What’s more, many organizations, such as Ocean Conservancy, are now calling for more dramatic changes to stop ocean plastic pollution, such as the reduction in production and consumption as well as outright bans on single-use plastics”—
as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned— “Many are calling for a shift to a zero-waste circular economy as the only solution to a plastic problem that we can’t recycle away.”
The Scottish Government aim to make Scotland a zero-waste society with a circular economy. They have a target of recycling 70% of waste by 2025, exceeding even EU targets, and they are matching the EU target for plastic packaging to be economically recyclable or reusable by 2030. The Scottish Government are also a signatory to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s new plastics economy global commitment, which will ban specified items of single-use plastics in EU member states. They have signed up to the agreement, even though there is no compulsion for Scotland to do so, as it is no longer a member of the EU, sadly. I hope the UK Government will follow the example of Scotland and the EU in that regard.
Scotland’s deposit return scheme works on the basis of the polluter pays, a principle that incentivises recycling, reduces litter and tackles climate change by reducing the amount of plastic going to landfill or ending up in our oceans. The scheme has been delayed because the First Minister is very keen to work with business to get this right. It is in all our interests, even if it is sometimes tempting to make cheap political points about this issue. The reality is that it is a fine and noble principle, and we should all work to make sure that it can do what it says on the tin. We all need to think about how we use, reuse and dispose of our plastic, because that is the problem that oceans face today.
Selaine Saxby
Would the hon. Lady agree that, while the deposit return scheme systems that are being looked at across the UK are vital, is it not better—as we are talking about international efforts—that we all work together to ensure that the scheme runs across the whole country, rather than having different schemes in different parts of our own islands, making it more complex for everyone involved?
Patricia Gibson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, but the point is that we cannot all move at the speed of the slowest caravan. We have to be bold and ambitious in what we seek our deposit returns scheme to achieve. What she proposes would be a better way forward, but the UK Government are slower and less ambitious. That is a pity, but we cannot be held back by that.
The scale of the plastic pollution in our oceans is catastrophic, and it is deeply damaging and deadly to marine life and habitats. It is difficult to know how many marine animals are killed each year due to plastic pollution. Many will go completely unrecorded. That said, some estimate that over 1 million animals, including many sea turtles, die each year due to plastic pollution in the ocean. The majority of animals that die are seabirds. Mammals are often more visible in the media and the public imagination, but they actually count for only around 100,000 deaths. That is still a huge number, but it does not tell the whole story. Those are just the marine animals that die as a result of plastic debris in the ocean. The toll would be much higher if other polluting factors, such as emissions from plastic production, were taken into account.
On a different tack, animals carry microplastics in their bodies, so when those animals are eaten those microplastics are also ingested. The process is called trophic transfer of microplastics. Since one animal eats another, microplastics can move through the food chain, ultimately reaching the human food chain. Some scientists have estimated that the average person might eat 5 grams of microplastics in a week, which is about the weight of a credit card. Another study breaks that down to being up to 52,000 particles annually from various food sources. According to the UN, there are over 50 trillion microplastics in the ocean, more than the number of stars in the Milky Way—that is astonishing. Due to the sheer quantity of microplastics in the ocean, it is difficult to find any marine animal without plastic particles in its gut or tissue. It is poisoning their food supply.
Whether or not microplastics impact human health is a relatively new field of study, but what we know so far is troubling, according to experts. Plastics and microplastics contain many harmful additives and tend to collect additional contaminants from their surroundings. Microplastic ingestion has been correlated with irritable bowel syndrome, while plastic-associated chemicals, such as bisphenol A, show correlations with chronic illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. We are talking about serious contamination. Action on plastic waste in our oceans requires us to reflect very carefully on the price we pay for plastic pollution—and the price our oceans pay.
Margaret Ferrier
Traces of microplastics have even been found in the placentas of pregnant women and in human blood. The risks of microplastics for human health cannot be ignored any longer. Does the hon. Member agree that we must end the plastic pollution of our water for our own health, as well as for the environment?
Patricia Gibson
It is the case that we are polluting our oceans, poisoning our marine life and, ultimately, poisoning ourselves. I do not think that is too stark a way of putting it. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct.
I am pleased we have had this debate, but the international community needs to take co-ordinated and serious action for marine and human health. I am looking forward to the Minister telling us what the UK Government will do, and what international efforts she believes can be made, led by the UK, in this regard. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate, because it is important that we keep a spotlight on the issue.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patricia Gibson Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Trudy Harrison
The hon. Gentleman raises a technical question. I am happy to liaise with my colleagues in the Department for Transport on that particular matter, and I will write to him with a response.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
According to a rural Scottish business panel survey last month, the impact of the cost of living is damaging rural Scottish businesses, with almost nine out of 10 having financial concerns and three quarters postponing investment plans due to cost increases. Despite what the Minister has said earlier, can she tell me what additional support she can provide to support rural communities struggling with higher costs?
Trudy Harrison
There is a plethora of support, particularly around energy with the household support fund and including from my colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade—the artist formerly known as BEIS. Surely the hon. Lady has seen the announcement this morning on how we are supporting the transition to green energy, too, which will benefit constituents not only in Scotland, but right around the UK.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Patricia Gibson ExcerptsMonday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise
again in support of this important Bill. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am passionate about animal health and welfare, and strongly believe that the Bill will help in that area.
The Bill has been strengthened and improved in the other place. Its definitions are also tighter. I am pleased that the Opposition amendment to remove animals from the Bill was withdrawn and has not been carried forward. It is so important that both animals and plants are included in the Bill. I was also pleased that the amendments that would have phased in animal provisions were not successful. That has strong benefits for animal health and welfare, and it is important that animals are included.
I very much welcome the Government’s allaying of concerns expressed by the Opposition about exogenous DNA, therefore preventing any exogenous DNA that was outside the range of an organism’s existing gene pool from remaining in the organism. Amendments 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been very helpful in that regard. It is important to reaffirm to the public and the world at large that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very, very different from genetic modification. That is where genetic material from exogenous or unrelated species can be introduced. That will not happen in this gene editing Bill.
I very much welcome the Government amendments that have removed reference to natural transformation. Some clarity was needed in that regard. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces more parliamentary scrutiny to help protect animal health and welfare, which strengthens the safeguards. This increased scrutiny will also allay some of the fears that people had put forward.
The Bill has huge benefits to animals, plants, the environment and people in, for example, helping to develop resistance to diseases such as avian influenza. A lot of work is being done to make birds resistant to this horrific disease. A huge outbreak has gripped this country and others across the world and that is firmly in our minds. This sort of technology will help us in that battle. It will also help us to develop resistance to other diseases, such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs. It will help reduce the need for medicines, help combat antimicrobial resistance and, indirectly and very directly, help public health. It will also help us as a country and as a world in our fight to preserve and strengthen food security by being able to develop more climate-resilient and disease-resistant crops, reducing the need for pesticides and reducing the need for fertiliser as well. That will also benefit the environment.
In summary, I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the Government amendments. I thank the other place for refining and improving the Bill and I wish it well as it completes its passage.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I will not detain the House longer than a moment or two, but I want to put on record that, although we in the SNP do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, our opposition to the entire Bill has been well documented throughout its passage. The Bill, alongside the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, attacks the integrity of the powers of the Scottish Parliament in specifically devolved areas such as agriculture, aquaculture and animal welfare.
The intended scope of the Bill may be England only, but the Bill documentation is clear that it will have significant impacts on areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In particular, the impact assessment for the Bill recognises that,
“products entering the market in England would also be marketable in both Scotland and Wales.”
It is outrageous that this Government did not see fit to work more closely—or at all—with the Scottish Parliament, to give that institution the respect it is due through this process and to listen to the concerns expressed. As a result, this entire Bill does not have the support of my party.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I have spoken to the Minister before, so he knows my thoughts on the Bill, and I am very pleased to add my support to what we have before us tonight. It is also good to hear from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who brings a wealth of personal knowledge to the debate—I thank him for sharing that with us.
I have been supportive of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill for some time now, having spoken with a number of farmers in my constituency who have expressed to me their willingness to engage with and support it when they learned how exactly it could help their work. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and also as a landowner.
To my reading, the Lords amendments simply provide clarity and clarification. The Minister was very good to share his response, which highlighted the use of the terminology “natural transformation”, and I thank him for that. Five of the amendments serve the purpose of removing references to natural transformation.
The amendments were made following concerns raised by MPs and peers regarding the potential for misinterpretation of the term as allowing the stable integration of the functional transgenic DNA, through the use of modern biotechnology, in an organism that is considered to be precision-bred for the purposes of the Bill. That is not in line with the Government’s policy intention, which is to allow only genetic features similar to those present in the gene pool or that might arise naturally through existing breeding processes.
As that clarity has been furnished, it is clear that our farming industry can benefit without dangerously interfering with genetic structure. I am encouraged by that, and I believe that the information from the National Farmers Union, which outlined gene-editing applications in 46 different crop species, with rice, tobacco, wheat and soybean among the most cited, is an indication of the clear benefits of the ability to use precision breeding.
A broad range of products with market-oriented traits are being developed, and not just those with agronomic traits such as yield and disease resistance, but foods with consumer-facing traits such as lower allergenicity, reduced contaminants, higher antioxidants, longer shelf life, vitamin enhancement and heart-healthiness—all things we would wish to see in foods. There are also those with climate-resilient traits such as drought and salt tolerance.
No one can ignore what is happening and what we have before us. It is not gene modification in livestock, but instead gene editing applications being developed and researched, including on resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. These technologies are exciting, innovative and challenging and I believe they give the United Kingdom a chance to lead the way. For example, if the problems of African swine flu in pigs or bovine tuberculosis in cattle could be sorted out, my goodness, we could all put our hands up and clap hard for that. Mastitis resistance, hornless cattle, chickens that cannot spread bird flu, elimination of milk allergens and increased lean muscle—how would that not be good news for our farming sector? It could only lead to more efficiency and higher standards and make our farming industry even stronger.
It is clear that this Bill solidifies what farmers and indeed many of our grandmothers have done for years with their roses and their peas. I well remember in Strabane back in the ’60s my grandmother being one of those people doing things with roses and peas, making changes even in those days. My grandmother called it splicing, but this is splicing made technical, and it is past time we legislated to protect it. I very much welcome what the Minister is bringing forward tonight.
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to hon. Members who have assisted not only in this place, but at the other end of the corridor, and particularly to my right hon. Friend Lord Benyon for steering the Bill so ably through the House of Lords.
It is worth putting on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—I see him in his place behind me—who was the originator of the Bill. He saw the benefit of this technology and brought in the Bill, ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) indicated, was one of the Ministers he jousted with over the Bill.
The shadow Minister was broadly supportive, but he had one little concern about animal welfare; I understand those concerns and I will try to reassure him. Animal welfare concerns were raised in both Houses and by non-governmental organisations. The Government are committed to maintaining our already high animal welfare standards and we want to improve and build on that record. That is why we are taking a step-by-step approach, with regulatory changes first for plants, followed then by animals. That is why we have also commissioned Scotland’s Rural College to carry out our research.
One reason why I was a little disappointed by the comments about Scotland from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) was that even she must be proud of the fantastic establishments in Scotland. Not least, the James Hutton Institute in Dundee and the University of Edinburgh are world-leading in some of this research. We need to embrace that research and bounce forward.
This is a fantastic Bill. I am glad to see it progress through the House and I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.
Patricia Gibson
It is right and fitting that the Minister pays tribute to the hub of scientific excellence that we find in Scotland in a range of different areas, but surely he is not suggesting that that, in itself, and using that expertise in Scotland is a reason for his Government to legislate by the back door in devolved areas in Scotland.
Mark Spencer
Not at all. This is an England-only Bill; it is there in black and white. I was expressing my disappointment on behalf of Scottish farmers who will not be able to use this technology. That will leave them at a disadvantage commercially, and I hope that she will listen to those Scottish farmers.