Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I am always interested in the right hon. Lady’s inquiries into the way that data is produced. She has made some valid points in the past, and I am always keen to engage with her on how best we can provide transparency. I am happy to take her point forward with Ministry of Justice colleagues. I have seen much closer working between the CPS and the police. That is working particularly well in the area of rape and serious sexual offences, which is why we have prioritised that work. I would be happy to look into her question.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential establishment of a special tribunal on crimes of aggression against Ukraine.

[The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)]

I am confident that Russia will be held accountable for its appalling actions in Ukraine. We have been at the forefront of international efforts. We have referred Russia to the International Criminal Court, we will intervene on behalf of Ukraine before the International Court of Justice later this year, and we are part of the core group of states working to establish a special tribunal for the crime of aggression.

[Peter Grant]

The Attorney General will appreciate that the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over crimes of aggression—in effect, the deliberate, violent and unprovoked military incursion into the sovereign territory of another recognised state. Karim Khan, a prosecutor at the ICC, has pointed out that none of the other 93,000 war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine could have happened had it not been for that initial crime of aggression. Will the Attorney General assure us that steps are being taken to set up a special tribunal as quickly as possible, so that Putin and his fellow criminals can be brought to justice before they get the chance to destroy the evidence?

[The Attorney General]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this matter. There are three broad strands to our work on accountability. First, we have provided expert assistance to Ukrainian investigators. Secondly, alongside the international community we will continue to provide the ICC with funding, people and expertise, though I accept that the crime of aggression cannot be prosecuted there. Thirdly, we are exploring other options to hold Russia accountable for the crime of aggression.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I had the great pleasure of attending the Balmoral show recently, although I admit we were more focused on farming and food, rather than aspects of animal welfare. The police can act on a number of activities where they suspect crime is being committed, and we intend to strengthen the offences to help the police.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

10. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of food.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

We have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues, and as halving inflation is one of the Government’s top priorities, it is discussed regularly. Recent discussions have covered the substantial package of support from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury that is already in place, and we continue to meet retailers and producers to explore how they can further support their customers.

[Peter Grant]

Families on lower incomes have no choice but to spend a much bigger proportion of their income on basic foodstuffs than those of us who are lucky enough to be better off. With inflation for many basic foodstuffs still running at over 30%, thousands of my constituents are facing real cost of living increases that are probably double the official rate of inflation. Government targets are all very well, but my constituents cannot eat targets. Can the Minister give any indication of how much longer my constituents will have to wait until the real price of their food shopping bill comes back to what it was just two years ago?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course we recognise that challenge, and that is why we are protecting the most vulnerable households. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced targeted support worth £26 billion to support those very people. More than 8 million households are eligible for means-tested benefits. They will receive extra cost of living payments totalling £900 per household in 2023-24, and over 99% of the cost of living payments for this year have already been made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries said, the investigation is under way. It is true that the Food Standards Agency is a non-ministerial Department and is accountable to the Department for Health and Social Care, but as my right hon. Friend said, there is active engagement. The machinery of government change that Select Committee Chair proposes is of interest, and I will consider it with the Prime Minister.

I would like to add that in my comments to the Select Committee the other day, I said that I do not read editorials in some of the magazines. I really enjoyed the article in this week’s Farmers Guardian about Angus herd fuel efficiency gains of 41p per kilo, and in Farmers Weekly about the trials of replacing insecticides, a Scottish pilot that was very interesting indeed.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

T5. When my constituents do their food shopping they are faced with price increases of between 10% and 15%, or even more, compared with last year. But farmers in my consistency are certainly not getting paid 10% or 15% more for their produce—they are lucky to even get paid the same as last year. If the farmers who produce the food are getting ripped off, and the customers who eat the food are getting ripped off, who is doing the ripping off? What are the Government going to do to stop it?

[Mark Spencer]

We have regular conversations across the supply chain. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify that the supply chain needs fairness to be built into it. There needs to be a sharing of risk, responsibility and reward. We have regular conversations with retailers, processors and primary producers to try to encourage fairness across the supply chain.

Annual Fisheries Negotiations with EU and North Atlantic States

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am surprised to hear the Minister say that he could not make a statement on this before today, because there was a statement on the Government website on 9 December.

I welcome the fact that we have got an agreement for the North sea that relies heavily on scientific advice. However, although an increase in catch quotas is welcome, certainly for the Scottish fishing industry, we also need seamless access to export markets. So will the Minister listen to calls from the industry for an improved deal for market access to the EU for Scotland’s fishing industry? The all-party group on fisheries recently reported that the fishing industry now takes a “principally negative” view of Brexit. In Scotland, that industry was almost the only voice for Brexit before the referendum. Does the Minister agree with the Scottish White Fish Producers Association Ltd that

“Brexit failed to deliver any benefits of being a coastal state”?

Given that Brexit red tape and paperwork alone cost the UK fishing industry £60 million in just the first 12 months, not including the cost of lost trade, when will the Government recognise the damage that Brexit has done to our fishing communities? When will they compensate them adequately for that loss?

Finally, I note that one big increase in quota is for blue whiting, which has increased by 80%, against the strong wishes of the UK and Scottish Governments, who wanted a more cautious approach on that species. How much of the increased value of this deal for the UK fishing industry relies on that increased quota for blue whiting, which the UK Government fought against?

[Mark Spencer]

Clearly, this deal is better than what we would have negotiated had we been within the EU. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about market access, and we continue to work with our colleagues in Europe to secure better access to those markets. That is all part of a long-term strategy to negotiate with our friends on the other side of the channel. Clearly, the 30,000 tonnes we were able to negotiate is a significant amount of fish, and better than we would have done as an EU member state.

I also say gently to the hon. Gentleman that this time we have seen increases in cod; in whiting and in saithe in the North sea; in megrims and in anglerfish in the Irish sea; in nephrops in the Irish sea and the Celtic sea; in nephrops in the west of Scotland; and in hake and in spurdog in the western area. I could keep going down the list, but we secured a good deal for the UK. Scotland gets its fair share of that deal, and I would have hoped that he would be more positive, on behalf of his Scottish fishermen, than he has been.

Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend the Labour Front-Bench team for tabling this motion, and I commend the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for setting out succinctly and forcefully the impact on real human beings of the failures of this Conservative Government. It was so farcical as to be really comical, if it was not so tragic, that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is no longer in his place, asked the Minister to agree that cutting food miles was a good idea, yet a Minster from the same Department a couple of weeks ago thought it was brilliant that we had arrived at a new trade deal with Australia and that we should be trying to cut food deals. What better vignette could there be to illustrate the inconsistency and chaos of this Government? They have torn up the best trade deal we will ever have with our nearest neighbours and replaced it with a deal with people who are literally on the other side the world, yet they have the cheek to tell us that the way to deal with food shortages in Britain is to cut food miles.

Just to put into context the scale of what we are facing here, the Bank of England has increased interest rates to try to control increasing inflation, but it is warning that it could reach 7.25% in April. Very few of our constituents will get a pay rise that comes within a mile of 7.25%, and most will be lucky to get anything. Data released by the Food Foundation charity shows that, in January this year, 4.7 million adults had experienced food insecurity, and National Energy Action estimates that 6 million households in these islands will be living in fuel poverty: that is not having to cut back slightly, but being unable to keep themselves warm enough to be safe and healthy, or to feed themselves and their families enough to keep healthy.

New analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns that the energy price cap will have the harshest impact on the poorest families. We knew that anyway, but JRF has given the evidential backing to it. The poorest families will spend 18% of their income on energy bills after April. Can hon. Members imagine spending 18% of their £80,000-a-year salary on fuel bills? This place would be in uproar if that happened. Why is it acceptable for low-paid folk to pay a bigger chunk of their income when it would not be acceptable for Members of Parliament? The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that average real wages will still be lower in 2026 than they were at the start of the financial crisis in 2008.

If all that was being said about a poor economy, a poor country or a poor collection of countries, we would think it was shameful, but it is being said about one of the richest places on the planet, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned earlier. Fuel poverty and food poverty—people literally living on the edge of starvation and hypothermia—are happening not because of necessity but because of a deliberate sustained political choice. It has certainly been the political choice of Conservative Governments since they were elected under the former Prime Minister David Cameron.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, remember that, in 2014, the Labour party and the Conservative party said to Scotland that, if we voted for independence, freedom of movement to Europe would end, supermarket shelves would be empty of food and energy prices would go through the roof? Does he agree that they have quite a bit of explaining to do?

[Peter Grant]

It is a valid point. Every so often, I go back through all the scare stories that have been pushed through my letterbox—mainly from the Labour party, because we do not really have a Tory presence in my constituency, or certainly not in my part of it. When we go through all the horrible things that they say will happen if Scotland becomes independent and leave them for two or three years, we find them happening anyway. It started with the closure of the naval base in Rosyth and it is still happening today with the end of freedom of movement and increasing food prices.

It is estimated that 1 million adults, equivalent to more than 3.5% of the UK population, are having to go without food at least once a month because they cannot afford to eat. About 640,000 people in Scotland cannot afford their energy bills, and that is before they got put up by 50%. That is in a country that has more energy than it needs and that, most years, exports energy to England and other countries because it cannot use all the energy it produces.

Where else in the world would we find any commodity in surplus that is, at the same time, priced beyond the affordability of its own citizens? What on earth is wrong with the way that Scotland is run that means that the people who produce almost more energy per head of population than anywhere else in the world cannot afford to pay their bills, keep their homes heated and keep their families healthy?

The Chancellor’s response is better than nothing but it is woefully inadequate. He is basically offering a payday loan: “We’ll give you the money just now to pay off your fuel bills and we’re going to hope and pray that they come back down again in the next few years.” If they do not, what on earth happens? The Scottish TUC has said that the Treasury’s buy now, pay later loan

“comes nowhere near tackling the problem…It is nothing short of shameful that people are being forced to choose between food and heat.”

If emergency loans are such a good idea to tackle the problem of increasing energy prices, why not go to the source of the problem and give them to the energy companies? They are struggling because of many global factors that have been covered in other debates. At least that way, the Government would be giving the loans to people whose shareholders should be able to meet the cost. Why give the loan to somebody who will not be able to afford to pay it back next year, the year after or the year after that?

Given that the decision has been made to give that money directly to citizens, the SNP says that it should be turned into a grant. People should not be made to choose between taking the money now and not being able to pay it back later. The Chancellor must also cut VAT on energy bills, which is within his gift. Why has he not done it?

As well as giving emergency loans to the energy companies, the Chancellor should have ruled out a rise to the energy price cap—he simply should not have allowed it, or Ofgem should not have allowed it. He could also reintroduce the £20-a-week universal credit uplift that the Tories cancelled recently. None of that by itself will solve the problem completely, but at least it would give an indication that we are dealing with a Government who care, whereas, quite clearly, we are dealing with a Government who could hardly care less.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Single young parents under the age of 25 face lower universal credit payments despite being the sole breadwinner for their child and despite, naturally, facing more barriers to work. Does the hon. Member agree that it is unacceptable for the Government to allow children to live in poverty based only on the age of their single mother or father?

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend—I hope that I can continue to call her a good friend and colleague—has, as always, made a very valid point.

One of the most iniquitous and downright evil things about the crisis that we are now facing is that the people who get the hardest hit will be those who are least able to afford it. If we all had to take a 20% hit to our living standards, none of us would enjoy it, but all of us would manage. Most of my constituents cannot afford to take that scale of hit to their standards of living and they are the ones who are being hit the worst.

I want to look briefly at some of the things that have been done by the Scottish Government, using their limited powers to mitigate this crisis. The Scottish Government have a much more progressive income tax system than the rest of the UK. It is often attacked by Tory Back Benchers who are interested only in the wellbeing of high earners, but the fact is that, in 2021-22, 54% of people in Scotland—the lower paid 54% of people in Scotland—are paying less income tax than they would if they lived in England. There is also fact that Members of Parliament for Scotland pay a bit more income tax than our colleagues in England. I do not mind that if the money is going into essential services.

Last year, the Scottish Government invested around £2.5 billion to support low-income households, nearly £1 billion of which went directly to children living in low-income households. They have committed more than £3.9 billion to benefit expenditure in 2022-23, providing support to more than 1 million people. That figure of £3.9 billion is £361 million above the level of funding that we get from the UK Government, so while again the Tories will demand guarantees that all of the money that comes to Scotland be used for its intended purpose, the Scottish Government are spending almost 10% more than they are receiving for that purpose.

The reaction of the Child Poverty Action Group was that this was

“a hugely welcome development on the path to meeting Scotland’s child poverty targets... a real lifeline for the families across Scotland who are facing a perfect storm of financial insecurity as the UK cut to universal credit bites, energy prices soar and the wider costs of living rise.”

It said that on 29 November 2021. The British Government did not seem to wake up to the problem until about 29 January 2022.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow—

[Patrick Grady]

North.

[Peter Grant]

Glasgow North. I do beg my hon. Friend’s pardon. I love the city of Glasgow, but I can never remember the constituency boundaries.

My hon. Friend has raised the impact that Brexit is having. Brexit has had a disastrous effect on our economy, and it has not finished. The OBR estimates that we still have three fifths of the way to go. Most of the damage from Brexit has still to be done. Every single person on these islands faces a cost of around £1,200 as a result of Brexit, and we know who will be hit the hardest. Make UK, the organisation that represents 20,000 manufacturers, has said that Brexit changes will undoubtedly add to soaring consumer costs in 2022.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I believe that he is making the point that Brexit is leading to some other cost of living issues. If that is the case, why are we seeing even greater levels of inflation and unemployment in other countries inside the EU? Rising costs and rising inflation are clearly a global issue, and nothing to do with Brexit.

[Peter Grant]

Is it not remarkable how—in this great global superpower, this global leader of the free world, this super global economy—every time that anything goes wrong it is global’s fault? “It was not me. A big global done it and ran away.”

I did see one figure at the weekend—that the price of energy in France is going up by about 4%. Here it is going up by 10 times that, even more than 10 times that for many people. Going back to the hon. Gentleman, I am only quoting figures from the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility. If the Government do not trust the OBR, perhaps it is because the number of people trusted by the Government is as few as those who trust the Government.

Let us not forget what promises were made before the Brexit referendum—I know that some people want to say that that is all water under the bridge and that we can forget about it. The present Prime Minister told us in 2016 that an upside of Brexit would be the freedom to scrap the unfair VAT on fuels. Now he says that removing VAT would be a “blunt instrument” that would not direct help towards those in most dire need. The Leader of the House, who I gather has just been promoted to the Cabinet, promised us in 2016 that the price of food would go down if we left the European Union. What has happened to those promises now, and where are the people who made them? Why are they not here to explain themselves to us and more importantly to our constituents?

[Hywel Williams]

Earlier the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) seemed at least to imply that the policy after Brexit was self-sufficiency in home-produced foods, whereas I had thought that, bestriding the world stage, we would import whatever we needed.

[Peter Grant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royal Assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

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

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022

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

Pet Travel

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and I commend the Backbench Business Committee for making time for it. I want to mention some of the petitions that have been included as background papers to today’s debate because, although none have reached the 100,000-signature threshold to guarantee a debate, some of them raise important issues that deserve to at least be given an airing.

I commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for her contribution and for her well-informed and well-researched comments, specifically on the laws that relate to the import of cats and how their welfare can be protected. Unlike the hon. Lady, I have never owned a cat in my life; I have been owned by a succession of mogs for a continuous period of about 25 years, although not recently. Something that always struck me was that every one of them was its own person. We have to accept that some animals have feelings, have emotions; they are intensely intelligent and intensely sentient. Sometimes I think they are a bit more emotionally intelligent than us humans.

Sadly, there are parts of the world, and there are people in all parts of the world, that regard all animals as simply objects to be bought and sold for money. Let us face it: there are people who think that their fellow human beings are little more than objects to be bought and sold for money. Therefore it is essential, in any legislation that this Parliament is competent to enforce, which in effect means the way animals are treated in the United Kingdom and all the rules about bringing animals into the United Kingdom, that we always impose our standard, the standard that would be accepted by the vast majority of people in these islands, which is that animals deserve to be treated humanely, to be well treated. They should not be transported halfway around the world in appalling conditions just because somebody thinks that having a cat or a dog of a particular breed will give them a bit of bragging rights at their local club.

In that context, I have to say that I do not get pedigree animals. All our cats were mogs, and proud to be so. I have some friends who get very touchy if their cat or dog is described as the wrong breed. I understand that that is a vital thing for a lot of people. I do not fully understand it myself—I don’t get it. I wonder whether we need to recognise that the belief that certain breeds are intrinsically more valuable than others is perhaps part of the problem. I know that that starts to open up very difficult questions—first, for those who have businesses responsibly and humanely breeding very specialist pedigrees, whether it is cats, dogs or any other animals. However, as somebody who is not really into the pedigree aspect of animals, I sometimes wonder whether it is part of the problem—if the reason why people are able to make money out of the cruel and unlawful treatment of animals is that somewhere, either in the UK or elsewhere, there is somebody who will pay an exceptional amount of money for a dog or cat just because it has a certificate that attaches it to a particular breed.

Dogs Trust has provided a very helpful briefing for today’s debate. It highlights some of the loopholes in the existing legislation and gives examples of how irresponsible breeders and irresponsible importers in the UK will find ways around legislation almost before the ink is dry on the Act. That means that the legislation has to keep being updated. We have to give powers to those with enforcement responsibilities so that they are able to adapt to whatever the latest dodge is.

For example, relatively recently, we have seen a big increase in the number of heavily pregnant dogs being brought into the UK, because the Government tried to help people to avoid buying illegally imported puppies by saying, “Don’t buy a puppy if you don’t see it with its mum.” What happened was that the importer would bring in a heavily pregnant female, show the puppies with their mum as soon as they were born, and then send the mum back to wherever she came from to start the whole horrible process again. The people buying the puppies in those cases thought that they were following the guidance; they had no idea that they were being duped and that the puppy would be with its mum for a few hours, if it was lucky, and that that would be the last it would see of her. I give that as just one example of how legislation has to keep pace with the worst examples of what we see either in the UK illegal pet import industry or in some of the worst examples that we see overseas.

I want to come on to the different petitions. There are two petitions about allowing pets to travel in airplane cabins. Neither has enough signatures to generate a debate, although one of them certainly has enough to merit a formal response from the Government, which it has received. If I am looking at petitions, my eyes are always drawn to the bit of the map that says “Glenrothes and Central Fife”, because how much support a petition has from my constituents is clearly relevant to me; and when I speak on behalf of the Scottish National party, I will always look to see what support it has elsewhere in Scotland. Neither of those two petitions, 587165 and 560549, has any significant support in Scotland. One of them got seven signatures from my constituency, and the other got one. Interestingly, the more heavily subscribed of them seems to have a lot of support in London. I do not know what the reason for that is, but the Government may want to look at why the question of how pets travel in aeroplanes is obviously important to a significant number of people in London and the surrounding area.

I can understand the sentiments behind that petition, because I can appreciate that it is upsetting for an owner to be separated from their pet for a long time while they are travelling and that the owner might think that it is also distressing for the pet. However, I am not convinced that I could support such a petition, although neither am I convinced that I would oppose it; I suppose that I am a bit of a “don’t know” on this issue.

That is partly because I am not an expert and so I cannot answer the question of whether it is in the best welfare interests of an animal to be in the cabin of a plane, where the owner can potentially hear it if it gets upset, but cannot do anything about it, or whether it is better to have pets in a designated part of the hold with a professional welfare officer there to look after them. I do not know the answer to that, but I think the petition possibly overstates the point a bit by suggesting that it is always in the interests of a pet to be kept in the cabin with its owner.

We also have to realise that even if the law was changed, what happens in practice would not necessarily change, because a lot of airlines flying in and out of countries where they are allowed to carry pets in the cabin choose, as a matter of their own policy, not to permit that, or they permit it only in certain circumstances. Thankfully, most airlines allow registered assistance dogs into the cabin, but a lot of them do not go any further than that. Although I can sympathise with the intention behind this petition, I am not convinced that changing the law in the way that is being asked for would have as much benefit as the petitioners perhaps think it would.

I can understand why the Government do not want to introduce any legislation on that just now; I can understand that they might not be convinced of the benefits, but can the Minister point to any clear evidence that changing the law as requested would cause any harm? If changing the law will not do a lot of good, but will not do any harm, why do we not allow airlines to do something that might benefit some of their passengers, unless there is clear evidence that harm would be done?

I have a great deal more sympathy for the other two petitions. First, petition 565677 seeks a common travel area between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for guide dogs and assistance dogs. It received just under 6,000 signatures, which is not a lot, but in Northern Ireland it received over 3,800 signatures. This petition is about an issue that has little or no impact on mainland Great Britain, but clearly is significant for people in Northern Ireland: 3,800 signatories from a population of 1.9 million is equivalent to about 138,000 signatories in the whole of the United Kingdom. We would clearly see that number as meriting time for a debate, either here in Westminster Hall or even possibly in the main Chamber.

I have a particular interest in making the guide dog service as widely available as possible, because my grandad, Arthur Grant, went blind in later life as a result of cataracts. Then he got Punch. He had Punch for about two or three years, and Punch changed his life. Unfortunately, Punch was quite a bit younger and fitter than my grandad, and too often Punch took grandad for a walk instead of the other way round. So Punch was taken and retrained for a younger owner, and Kirsty arrived. Kirsty was with my grandad for her entire working life. My grandad died the weekend after Kirsty was retired and I will always believe that he just decided that it was time to go.

For all that time, Punch and then Kirsty were my grandad’s eyes, but they were more than that; they were his constant companions. They were his best friends in a way that a dog or a cat that is a best friend to somebody who can see for themselves cannot possibly be.

My grandad had 12 active and independent years at the end of his life, which would not have been possible without those guide dogs, so I can never sufficiently thank the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, as it was called then. I can say with some feeling that any obstacle that gets in the way of this life-changing service in any part of these islands must be removed, if at all possible, and I urge the Government to look very seriously at this petition and to do what it takes to deliver what is being asked for.

It is tragic if anyone in Northern Ireland is either unable to receive the support of a guide dog or has to wait for a guide dog to arrive because of bureaucracy related to Brexit. As this part of the debate focuses almost entirely on Northern Ireland, it is perhaps worth pointing out that grandad Grant was of Ulster descent, which, of course, means that so am I; in fact, I can claim Ulster descent on both sides of my family.

The final petition that we are considering—petition 593806—calls for the UK to join the EU pet passport scheme. Again, there are not a huge number of signatories, but I know that the people who have signed this petition love their animals—their pets—and get really distressed at the additional bureaucracy and additional cost that is now imposed on them if they want to do what they used to do quite easily, which is to take their pet on holiday with them.

What this petition tries to undo is one of the downsides of Brexit that people were not told about before. I am hoping that today’s debate can be consensual, so I will not labour the point too much, but it is one example of a consequence of Brexit that might not have looked like it was very high up the list of issues to be addressed at the time. It simply was not addressed until it was too late.

While the Government will no doubt talk about their efforts to persuade the European Union to improve the UK’s position from part 2 to part 1 listed, the unavoidable truth is that on the day that the Government unilaterally set out for EU exit, they handed that decision over entirely to the European Union. The petition asks to undo some of the damage done by Brexit. I suspect those who signed the petition, even those who voted for Brexit, had no idea of the impact that Brexit was going to have.

Are the Government aware of any harm that would be done if the petition on allowing pets into aircraft cabins was accepted? On the petitions for a common travel area for guide dogs and assistance dogs, and on rejoining the EU pet passport scheme or giving pet owners benefits as close to those granted under that scheme as possible, I urge the Government to do what is requested as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend. While we are talking about how wonderful they are, I have to mention my two cats, Mr Tipps and Raffa. The lovely lady who goes into my house to feed them when I am not there has literally just sent me two pictures of them so that I know they are okay—I think they are basically in command when I am not there, having a great time.

We are a nation of dog lovers and cat lovers, are we not? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for securing this debate. She is a great champion for cats, being chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cats, and she has a lot of in-depth knowledge of this subject, so I thank her for securing the debate. I personally take all issues relating to the welfare of animals—particularly things such as puppy smuggling, other illegal importations and low welfare movements of pets—extremely seriously. There is an abhorrent trade going on out there. I believe that, as a Back Bencher, I worked with my hon. Friend; indeed, I was co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare. Interestingly, as I think the shadow Minister will agree, a lot of the measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill relate to the issues we talked about up to five years ago. Those things, which are a manifesto commitment, are now coming forward in that Bill, cracking down on these ghastly practices, particularly puppy smuggling and low welfare issues. I am very pleased that we are seeing that action happen now.

My hon. Friend will be familiar with the significant changes that I am proposing we make to the existing rules on the non-commercial movement and the commercial importation of cats, dogs and ferrets—do not leave out the ferrets, Ms Ali. We know that there is evidence that traders abuse our pet travel rules, illicitly using them to bring in lots of puppies at once to maximise profit. The welfare of those puppies is frequently compromised—we have all seen some really ghastly footage of what is going on. Indeed, I have friends who have brought a dog without any idea at all that they came through illegal channels, so that definitely needs cracking down on.

The Bill aims to tackle the issue by reducing the number of pets—dogs, cats and ferrets—that can travel in one non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle, or three per person if people are travelling on foot or by air, to prevent unscrupulous traders from exploiting our pet travel rules. Air travel was raised by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who does not have a cat—although I think that, having heard this debate, he might be going home to get one.

[Peter Grant]

I could not honestly tell the Minister how many cats have owned me in the past. When the last one went to the big cattery in the sky, the reason we chose not to get another one was precisely that we were not happy at having to impose on neighbours to look after them when we were away and did not feel it was fair on the cat to take it with us. It is not that I would not like to have a cat; it is just that we thought it was not fair on the cats to be left to look after the house on their own when we were not there.

[Rebecca Pow]

That is a really important point for pet owners, and it is why I do not have a dog—it simply would not be fair to leave it. I think that cats are rather more independent, although I have to rely on a neighbour to come in and out, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Even though people can now get self-feed mechanisms and watch on their phone to see whether the cats have taken the food, I want a human to come in and see my cats every day, because I think they like it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes was talking about air travel. Obviously, all pets travelling into GB have to be checked for compliance with the necessary health and documentary requirements prior to entry. To facilitate those checks, all pets entering GB airports must be transported safely and securely to the pet-checking facility. In practice, that means that most pets are required to travel by air to GB as manifest cargo, and we do not have any immediate plans to change the process by which pets—cats, dogs and ferrets—may enter GB by air. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. Interestingly, when one was allowed to travel freely, my daughter travelled to Majorca with a friend’s dog. The dog was next to her on the plane, in a proper bag, which I find extraordinary. I have never seen that before, but it was all totally legal and had all the right paperwork. The dog was literally sitting on the seat next to her.

Back to the Bill. As I have said, it aims to tackle these issues by reducing the allowed number of pets from five per person to five per vehicle, and to three per person if one is travelling on foot. We completed extensive research and engagement with various stakeholders to determine a suitable limit that would disrupt the illegal trade while diminishing the impact on genuine owners travelling with their pets under the pet rules. The Bill also includes an enabling power to make regulations about the importation of pet animals in Great Britain, for the purpose of promoting animal welfare. That will enable us to go further in the future and explore measures such as increasing the minimum age at which animals can be moved for non-commercial purposes or commercially imported into Great Britain, prohibiting the importation of heavily pregnant dams and animals that have been subjected to mutilations, such as ear-cropping and tail-docking. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall welcomes all the measures in the Bill, as she said. The Bill has completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons, as we have heard, and we are now awaiting a date for Report.

In August, the Government launched an eight-week consultation on our proposed restrictions to the commercial and non-commercial movement of pets in Great Britain. The consultation focused largely on dogs and included proposals to prohibit the commercial importation and non-commercial movement of puppies under six months, dogs that have undergone non-exempted mutilations such as cropped ears and docked tails, and dogs that are over 42 days pregnant. We have proposed a limited number of exceptions to the measures that were laid out within the consultation, which also sought views on the enforcement regime, the process for seizing and detaining animals that are suspected of being illegally imported, and whether the maximum penalty should be increased.

The consultation has now closed, and we have received an incredible 14,000 responses from a wide range of stakeholders and members of the public. We are analysing all the responses to the consultation and will publish a summary in due course. That will allow us to take on board the views of the public and interested groups, such as Cats Protection, to shape future policy. We will continue to work closely with all the stakeholders before the introduction of the legislation to ensure that the final measures are well considered and led by the latest evidence.

We are finally getting to cats. I fully acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about extending the measures to cats, and I am also aware that a number of stakeholders are calling for us to raise the minimum age at which kittens can be imported and to ban the importation of heavily pregnant and declawed cats. I absolutely agree with hon. Members who have mentioned that horrific activity, which is illegal in the UK. We did not propose those measures in the consultation because there is limited evidence of a significant illegal trade in cats, or significant numbers of low welfare movements.

Going into some of the stats, the number of movements of cats into Great Britain is much lower than for dogs. In 2020, cats made up 9% of the total commercial movements of cats, dogs and ferrets to Great Britain, although that was a 2% increase from 2019 and I acknowledge the point made about cat ownership rocketing during lockdown. Dogs travelling by the same rules made up 91% of the total movements. Non-commercial movements of cats are also much lower than those of dogs. In 2020, 12% of the corresponding non-commercial movements into Great Britain were of cats, while dogs made up 88% of the total movements over the same period. We are also not seeing the same issues with young kittens and pregnant cats being imported. In 2020, only 17 kittens under 15 weeks—and zero pregnant cats—were seized and detained.

The consultation obviously sought views on whether that was the right approach. I note the comments made and will definitely pass them to the Minister who is bringing forward the Bill, particularly about pregnant cats, the specialist breeds, and that de-clawing mutilation issue.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am alive to that danger. When introducing any new scheme, it is critical that we do not over-engineer its design and that we tack towards simplicity to make sure that things are deliverable. What we want to do on this new scheme is move away from the endless form filling, endless mapping, and arguments over maps, and instead get to a position where a trusted adviser or agronomist walks the farm with the farmer, sits down around the kitchen table and helps them put together a plan that is right for their farm.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

Moran Taing, Mr Deputy Speaker, agus Latha Noamh Anndra sona dhuibh. A happy St Andrews Day to you.

I recently met Fife and Kinross representatives of the National Farmers Union, Scotland. They already face severe problems because of combined impacts of the covid pandemic, the looming chaos of Brexit and serious difficulties in recruiting seasonal workers. Now we find that farmers in Scotland are likely to face a funding loss of £170 million compared with what the Tories promised in their manifesto. The president of the NFUS says that this will undermine the crucial delivery of promises to meet climate change and biodiversity challenges. Why should I believe that the Minister is right and that the president of the NFUS is wrong?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

What representations the Committee has received from the Electoral Commission on the regulation of digital campaigning.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian)]

Digital technology offers significant opportunities to engage voters, but the commission’s report on the 2019 general election highlighted significant public concerns about the transparency of digital election campaigns. At its meeting on 24 March 2020, the Committee approved the commission’s interim corporate plan, which includes plans to address voter concerns about digital campaigning. This includes voter awareness work, with a particular focus on digital campaigning, and the commission will also support the UK Government as they develop and implement new requirements for imprints on digital campaign material.

[Peter Grant [V]]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his full answer. Other than an all-out military attack, there are few things that pose a greater threat to our way of life than concerted foreign interference in our election processes. The commission has repeatedly warned of the need for greater regulation of online campaigning, and the Intelligence and Security Committee found that Russia is actively seeking to use social media and other online methods to exert a malign influence on elections in the United Kingdom. What commitments have the commission or the Speaker’s Committee had from the Government that they will take effective action to address these threats before our national and local elections are scheduled for next year?

[Owen Thompson]

The commission works to protect the integrity of elections and the public’s confidence in it. There are limits to the activities that it can lead. The legal powers and remit stop at the UK borders. It looks to others to lead important activities outside political finance regulations, such as ensuring that elections are free from foreign interference. It supports the UK Government and security services in that area of work. It has made recommendations to the UK Government that would improve the transparency of digital campaigning, ensuring that voters know who is trying to influence them online, and provide the commission with better powers. This would reduce the risk of interference from overseas organisations or individuals.

Waste Incineration Facilities

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate. Her parting shot was that her constituents do not want an ecological eyesore as their new landmark, and my constituents feel exactly the same way about the proposals to build a giant incinerator between the villages of Longparish and Barton Stacey. Only two weeks have passed since we last debated this subject, and it is right that we should do so again, because the Minister did not have time to respond. It is imperative that she should have the opportunity to give a fuller answer than she had time to do last time.

I regret to have to rehearse the issue we face in Romsey and Southampton North, where American conglomerate Wheelabrator seeks to build a massive, industrial-scale incinerator the size of Battersea power station in the Hampshire countryside. Billed by the applicants as a green waste-to-energy scheme, locally there are serious doubts that a proposal such as this can ever be green. So enormous is the development that it is to be determined by the Secretary of State—it is classified as a nationally significant infrastructure project—rather than by the local waste and minerals authority, Hampshire County Council or the local borough council, Test Valley Borough Council. I commend both those councils for being resolute in their opposition to it.

I will not rehearse the many good planning reasons why the scheme should be refused, but there are serious questions about whether it will ever generate the amount of power required to achieve the level of a national infrastructure project. On its website, Wheelabrator proudly proclaims that the scheme will have an energy generating capacity of up to 65 MW, but in public consultations with residents, the company has acknowledged that that is entirely dependent upon the calorific value of the feedstock. We know we have to get better at removing plastics from the waste stream, and those plastics have some of the highest calorific values when burned. I commend the steps the Government have taken so far, but much more can and must be done.

I visited a packaging manufacturer in my constituency with the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—we look terribly attractive wearing blue hairnets. The company’s managing director kept making the point that they wanted to use high-quality recycled plastics in their packaging, but it was too difficult to get hold of them. They used a percentage of recycled, but it was easier and cheaper to get fresh plastics than to extract plastics from the waste stream. They wanted Government action to ensure that the plastics that we all know are in the waste stream can be redirected into businesses such as theirs.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

In Scotland, any new incinerator is required by law to remove all metals and plastics from the waste product before it is incinerated. Would the right hon. Lady welcome similar legislation in England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be able to begin the summing up in this debate. I will try to be brief, because I think that the hon. Members who have spoken want the Minister to be given a significant amount of time to respond. It is quite clear from the number of hon. Members who have spoken, and from the unanimity with which they have spoken, that there is a major problem.

It struck me that anyone who seriously believes that Britain is a model of modern democracy in action should watch this debate. Something must have failed in this democracy for so many people, from so many different political standpoints, to have come here and said, “No, we can’t have this.” How did we get to a position where the planning framework, energy production regulation and all the rest of it are so out of touch with the real people for whose benefit the energy is supposed to be created? I will leave that question there, because it is a much bigger question than I can answer today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing the debate and on the way she introduced it, and I congratulate everybody else who has spoken, because there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity. It seems to me that there is a major problem here: if it is decided by the Government that energy from waste is an essential part of the United Kingdom’s energy production to meet the country’s needs, where are we going to build those facilities? If all the facilities that people are complaining about today were scrapped and planning applications were put in in 10 other constituencies around the UK, we would have 10 other MPs complaining, backed by 10 other sets of councils, and so on.

It is not good enough just to say, “They are a bunch of nimbys.” There are clearly concerns about the incineration of industrial and domestic waste that go well beyond the attitude of “not in my backyard”. I think it was the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) who commented that she had been assured that the danger to her constituents was less than it would be if they lived next to a major road. If I was a parent worried about my children living next to an incinerator, telling me that some other poor MP’s children or constituents were going to be made even sicker than mine would not be a particularly sensitive or sensible way to present the case.

I mentioned some of the steps that have been taken by the Scottish Government. I will list some of them and hope that the Minister will either confirm that these provisions are in place just now in England, or say whether there is any intention to introduce them. The Scottish Government are taking steps to try to get a balance between our obvious need for energy and the even more obvious desire to produce and distribute it in a way that does not affect people’s health.

For example, the Scottish Government have already put a ban on the landfill or incineration of anything collected for recycling, because there have been so many scandals where companies would collect stuff that people had carefully separated out for recycling and then throw it into a hole in the ground because doing so was cheaper than recycling it. From 2025 there will be a ban in Scotland on any local authority sending biodegradable waste to landfill and, as I have mentioned, any new incinerators that are being planned now will be required to separate out plastics and metals before the stuff gets incinerated.

To my mind, those provisions do not go far enough. We should look to move quickly to a point where our energy supply does not rely on energy from waste at all, because it does not appear to me as though there is any way to indiscriminately burn waste material without creating an unacceptable health hazard to those who live close by. As has been pointed out, children and those who are more active tend to be the ones who suffer. I thought the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) spoke very well about the almost ridiculous fact that for people living near an incinerator, exercise might actually make them more ill, rather than helping them to get healthy.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, we are covered at the moment by the European waste incineration directive. Can she give an absolute, unconditional guarantee that there will be no lessening of the standards contained in that directive once we have left the European Union? There will be pressure from big business to relax those standards, as there will be to relax a lot of other standards that are there to protect us.

Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the amount of energy that we are likely to need to produce from waste to fill the gap in the United Kingdom’s energy needs? It is all very well for us to sit here and say, “I do not want this here or that there,” but if the Government’s energy planning has not provided for enough production to meet anticipated consumption, we have a problem. The power stations and incinerators will have to be built somewhere.

My final point, which has already been made by other hon. Members, is that if our energy supply depends on having waste to burn, we will have to keep producing waste. That is a bad thing. We should be reducing the amount of waste we produce. The fact that waste can be used to create energy does not make its production a good thing. We heard some good examples of that, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) listed some steps that have been taken in Northern Ireland. As a priority, we should reduce the amount of waste that we produce. If that meant that it was no longer economical to build an incinerator to burn waste because waste was no longer being produced, that would be a good thing.

Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the amount of energy that is likely to be produced from waste in future? How does that fit with the United Kingdom’s ambition to become a zero-waste society?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I almost wish that was true—that the debate had been about sovereignty and the great things this country could do. All I ever saw was the disgusting and nauseating posters about immigration; all I saw in the right-wing press was about that issue. Every time I went on a hustings with a Conservative Member of Parliament, it was all about ending freedom of movement and controlling immigration. That was all I heard. That was the repeated message, again, again and again.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Like me, and I presume everyone else in the Chamber, my hon. Friend got a begging email from the Prime Minister shortly before the first attempt to push this through. It listed the benefits of her deal and No. 1—top of the list of the Prime Minister’s reasons for supporting the deal—was, was it not, ending freedom of movement. Did my hon. Friend get a different set of priorities? Is it possible that the Prime Minister gave us a priority that we could not support at the top of the list and gave something different to those who now deny that the referendum was about ending freedom of movement?