Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Since my hon. Friend and I were at college together, both of us have been champions of wonky veg, and indeed other unconventional foodstuffs, and he is absolutely right: when it comes to food, the search for symmetry and for perfection is vain and, if the House will excuse the pun, fruitless. The true joy of food comes in appreciating the diversity of British food producers and the way in which wonky veg—or even, sometimes, unconventional cuts of meat—can be a source of great nutrition. In that respect, Mr Speaker, may I say that even though it is awful, sometimes it is a good thing to indulge in tripe?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I must say I rather enjoyed that. I must say to the House that I did exhort the right hon. Gentleman to inject into his answers some philosophy, and I think he has already done that.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to improve welfare standards for puppies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Did the Secretary of State see the wonderful young people campaigning for the environment and against climate change last Friday? Some of them are in the Gallery today. Can we not harness the enthusiasm of those young people in tackling waste, waste crime and litter? They are out there plogging—clearing the planet up—so will he put his energy, action and leadership behind those young people?

[Mr Speaker]

I should say to the Secretary of State that I think I am right in saying that a couple of little Sheermanites are observing our proceedings today.

[Michael Gove]

I was going to say that we have recently seen a number of new groups emerging in this Chamber. May I say that I welcome the growing number of Sheermanites in the Chamber? I am tempted to join them myself.

The serious point that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) made is absolutely correct. The idealism shown by our young people towards the environment is inspirational. In particular, we hope that through the Year of Green Action we can support youth and community groups across the country in taking practical steps to improve the environment around us and to raise awareness of the threat of climate change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Hon. Members are absolutely right to raise the issue of insect decline, but it is not just about insects. We know there have been huge declines in many birds and mammals, too. I am sure that like myself, Mr Speaker, as a child you enjoyed grubbing around for grass snakes and slowworms.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

[Sue Hayman]

It is now much harder for new generations to do that. How will the draft environment Bill, which has been roundly condemned as toothless, ensure that this appalling ecological meltdown will be properly tackled?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well, I will take one more question: Helen Goodman.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Further to the Secretary of State’s previous answer, on Monday he sought to reassure sheep farmers by saying that in the event of no deal he would be able to make payments to them, but because he has sat on the Agriculture Bill for 10 weeks surely he will not have the statutory powers to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that it is not just church buildings that are of importance; it is the people within them and the work they do. Just two weeks ago I was able to do a tour of all the churches in Uttoxeter in my constituency. I talked to the people in those churches and witnessed first-hand the great work they do in our community by supporting people, particularly the sick and the vulnerable. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Christians across the country on the work they do in our communities?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a busy bee doing this extensive tour; it sounds absolutely enticing.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who do so much right across our country. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Church of England, which operates the single largest group of schools in the UK. Very often those schools are in small rural communities, and the schools and their teachers face big challenges, as do other rural services—distance, access to facilities, cost of living, the reduction in family sizes and so on. The Church has done a great deal to try to improve the sense of community right across our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to learn that more than 250 young people will gather in Liverpool this weekend to take part in the national youth ringing contest. The Church of England is delighted to see young people rediscovering the love of these traditional community activities. Church schools and parishes provide a range of support to children and young people, and initiatives such as these show how beneficial exercise and teamwork can be for young people’s wellbeing.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say to the House that I have observed bell ringing being undertaken in Winslow and in Lillingstone Lovell in my constituency, and very skilfully undertaken it was too. For my own part, I am bound to say that I think I was very maladroit when trying to bell ring. I found it a most strenuous activity. But there you go—perhaps with practice I might get a little bit better.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about the loss of income to belfries from letting them to telecommunication companies for their antennae? As a consequence of the cack-handed introduction of the telecommunications code, the loss of income is as disconcerting to bell ringers as it is to the vicar.

Exiting the European Union (Aquaculture)

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the details set out by the Minister. As we know, aquaculture is not a big sector of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, but it is a critical part of it. Aquaculture creates a large number of jobs and, more importantly, it boosts the local economy—the 36 licences have been mentioned.

The Minister mentioned mussels and oysters, and we have an excellent, disease-free product in Northern Ireland. Strangford lough, which gives its name to my constituency, has a strong oyster base, and I want its importance to increase for the export market. The statutory instrument refers to alien species, an issue that often comes up in this important sector, because waters can bring in invasive species. The Minister outlined how the regulations will continue things.

The co-operation between the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the fisheries Department in particular, and the Republic of Ireland is of some interest to me, as it should be to everyone in this House. Can the Minister confirm that the Republic of Ireland accepts the rules as put forward in the SI? I understand the issue he referred to in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly and devolution. I thank him for his confirmation about the process of secondary legislation and about no delays. It is important that we have no delays and that we have a fluent system that flows easily into the new devolution and new position we will have after 29 March. With the secondary legislation in place, will the licences continue to be issued by the fisheries division at the Northern Ireland Assembly? The “nothing changes” regulations and scrutiny, to which the shadow Minister referred, mean that the produce can continue to be exported, and that is very important. Our mussels and oysters in Northern Ireland have excellent health and our markets remain open.

The Minister has always had at heart the interests of the fisheries sector and, in particular, the aquaculture sector, which although small is significant in what it does. I have spoken to the local fish producers organisations and asked for their opinion, and they are quite happy with what is going forward. If we have the support and blessing of the local fishing sector—those who are involved in aquaculture, and the mussels and oysters sector—we should let this SI make its way through the House of Commons, ever mindful of the importance of having these things in place come 29 March.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) is poised like a panther. Does he wish to speak?

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, well then I call Mr Alan Brown.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to take part in this statutory instrument debate and welcome the Minister to his place. A couple of weeks ago I thought, when we got Committee Room 14, that we could not get a bigger audience to listen to these statutory instrument debates. How little did I know that we would end up in the main Chamber? I will sound the usual caveat that the Opposition do not think this is the way to scrutinise secondary legislation. Some of it is very important, and it is being rushed through at the speed of light. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult to scrutinise, and we are obliged to rely on the capability of the civil service to ensure that the exercise they are doing, which is largely a cut-and-paste job, is right; otherwise, mistakes will be made, which we will only learn about in due course.

The Minister was right to say that the process became an affirmative procedure at the request of the House of Commons sifting Committee, and the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) was right to point out that one reason for that was that there is a cost implication, because DEFRA has the ability to charge fees for the costs of tests. The other two reasons were that the instrument confers powers to legislate, changing the functions of the UK as a member state to functions of UK public authorities—presumably a reference to the Health and Safety Executive—and that these amendments had an impact on the safety regulations governing the import of ammonium nitrate materials from outside the EU.

The instrument before us is not a contentious piece of legislation, but it is important because ammonium nitrate, for those who know, is explosive. My own port of Sharpness, which imports fertilisers, including ammonium nitrate, was regularly policed in the days of the IRA because of what could happen to that ammonium nitrate. So we cannot but do our best to ensure that the instrument is as foolproof as possible.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. We do not intend to oppose the instrument, but it is important that we get it right. Clearly, fertilisers are crucial to agriculture, but they are also controversial. If the Agriculture Bill does return to the Floor of the House, amendments will be tabled on Report on the relationship to the Government’s environmental strategy, which is about using fewer fertilisers, and on looking at agri-ecology as an alternative way of producing our food supply. So this is quite a controversial area to the extent that there are those who would say that we should reduce, if not remove, fertilisers and find other ways to grow our food.

This instrument provides for the definition, composition, labelling and packaging of fertilisers, and given that the UK imports the vast majority of its fertiliser, we are dependent on those who wish to export it to us. That will be a substantial change, if and when we leave the EU, because we may choose to import from different parts of the world, and we must ensure that we are completely clear on the safeguards and that the regulatory regime is fit for purpose.

At the moment—I am not sure whether the Minister said this—businesses can choose whether to use the current UK regulatory regime for fertilisers or one that is available from the EU. It will be interesting to know what the Minister thinks about potential changes, and the implied costs. Again, we make our usual criticism that there is no regulatory impact assessment. It is only fair and reasonable to ask what the cost implications are. Yesterday, I managed to take part in a debate with the Department of Health and Social Care on pharmaceuticals, and it provided a regulatory impact assessment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not seem to be very good at producing such assessments. Its argument is always that there are no explicit cost implications. That is easy to say, but it would be much easier for us to make a judgment if we could look at that and investigate it.

The explanatory memorandum—this may be my inability to access IT—refers to a technical note on page five, but I cannot download that note. It would be useful to know what it contains, but I may be able to obtain it in a different format. It is important that that is made available to those who need to know, whether they are in the business or whether they wish to scrutinise what we are up to.

As I have said, I have a series of questions for the Minister, as always, to keep him on his toes and make sure that we know what we are doing. The Nature Friendly Farming Network raises the case of those who have stored fertilisers that have been labelled under the EU system. What is the status of those fertilisers after the two years are up? Should they be destroyed? Can people continue to use them? Do the fertilisers have to be re-regulated? What is likely to be the situation? As we know, many farm products are stored for years, if not decades, so it is important to know the timeframe for existing products. Will the Minister say something about that, as people want certainty about it, and they need to know exactly what the implications are.

The Nature Friendly Farming Network says that the rules for imports from the EU are different from those for imports outside the EU. Presumably, we need a standard trade agreement, otherwise we will have a differentiated trade in fertilisers. What will the Minister do to ensure that that is the case, so that there is consistency?

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board does not have any particular bones of contention, but it is important that we listen to what it says, especially on the environmental effects of non-organic fertilisers. It would be a retrograde step to move away from the progressive approaches to which we have signed up as part of our membership of the EU. What are the Government doing to make sure that there is not a race to the bottom if we look for cheaper, non-organic substitutes, which would lead to all sorts of problems if they got into the water supply. At the very least, they would be likely to damage soil quality, which we discussed at great length when we considered the Agriculture Bill and which features heavily in the Government’s draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill.

The principal concern of the Agricultural Industries Confederation is about certainty, which is not there because of the current Brexit situation. It would be interesting to know what discussions the Minister has had with the AIC. If we crash out and have to adopt WTO tariffs, that will have a major impact on the industry because of its reliance on imports. What analysis have the Government made of the impact on the industry and on farmers in general?

Likewise, the National Farmers Union is clear that it needs continuity and an uninterrupted supply of fertilisers. It is worried about the cost implications if we cannot continue to source our fertilisers. I believe that most come from Spain and some come from elsewhere in the EU. That is important.

The Landworkers Alliance states that the agrochemicals, antibiotics and nitrate fertilisers used in intensive farming have a negative effect. What is being done to ensure, as I said earlier, that there is no race to the bottom and that we pay more than just lip service in our commitment to the environment? That is also important.

Although the Soil Association has no specific reason to doubt the Government’s intention for the faithful transposition of measures into UK law, it is concerned about the environmental objectives of the regulations, which are not necessarily spelled out as clearly as they could be. When the Minister sums up, it is important that he says something positive about that.

In conclusion, farmers need fertilisers. They need certainty about access and supply. On agroecology, we need to understand that, as the world moves forward, we will need fewer of them, but we will also need to ensure that they are good quality and, I hope, organic and that people are able to eat good, wholesome food. The one drawback from lack of access to fertilisers is that we could end up with an overabundance of phosphates and nitrates, which will have an impact on the food that we eat and the human food chain. It is important, therefore, that the Government commit to no diminution of standards. We have regularly heard them say that, but we have yet to see it in legislation, and there is no better place to put it than the Agriculture Bill. I hope that the Minister is listening and that the Government will ensure that they do not just talk about the issue but carry it through in the Bill so that our soils are replete and our farming can guarantee wholesome food, which is what we all want.

[Mr Speaker]

The natural modesty of the hon. Gentleman has prevented him from announcing to the House and for the edification of those observing our proceedings that in speaking from his party’s Front Bench he does so not as David Drew but as Dr David Drew, blessed with a doctorate in rural economy. That is something that should be known to the world. I call Minister George Eustice.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. There was a change of personnel on the Scottish National party Front Bench. Although we very much look forward to what the Minister has to say, it will not be before we have heard from Deidre Brock.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I bring apologies from the Secretary of State this morning. He will not be attending these proceedings because he is attending vital cross-party meetings in Downing Street—[Interruption.] I am sure that Members across the House will understand that those meetings are vitally important at this stage.

In answer to Question 1, in the 2017 autumn Budget, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was allocated an additional £310 million to support its work on EU exit preparations in this financial year, 2018-19, with a further £10 million being repurposed from existing budgets. DEFRA is using that additional funding to prepare for and deliver its ambitious programme of EU exit activities in readiness for all scenarios, including preparations for the UK leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement, as is the duty of a responsible Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Further to what the Minister has just said, I advise the House that the Secretary of State, in keeping with his usual courtesy, informed me last night of his intended absence. I shall greatly miss him, but we look forward to seeing the fellow again before too long.

[Mr Hollobone]

Well, I am not sure that the House does understand the Secretary of State’s absence, Mr Speaker. DEFRA questions are only half an hour long; surely those meetings could have been delayed for 30 minutes. My question to the Minister is: will DEFRA be 100% ready in the event of us having to leave with no deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The Hunting Act 2004 makes it clear that, apart from certain exemptions, there is a ban on hunting with dogs. It is important that people take their evidence to the local police forces. I am aware of the incident in Cheshire through social media, and I understand that Cheshire police is investigating it. It is a crime, and it is up to the police force to investigate.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Richard Graham—not here. Where is the fella? It is a great shame—oh dear! Well, never mind, Hannah Bardell is here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

The Secretary of State has previously been reported as promising a genetic food revolution in the new year. In a statement, the National Farmers Union warned in the strongest possible terms against any lowering of food standards post Brexit. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister now put an end to this uncertainty, which the Secretary of State created? Will he accept an amendment to the Agriculture Bill to ensure that the standards of our high-quality produce are never lowered or diluted?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I see that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is now scampering into the Chamber. He will have to catch his breath. The fella’s missed his question—dear oh dear! Anyway, it is better later than never. It is good to see the chappie, and I am glad that he is in good health.

[George Eustice]

We have been absolutely clear that we will not water down or dilute our approach to food standards, food safety or animal welfare in pursuit of a trade deal. Any future treaty establishing a trade deal would of course come back to this House under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and would be subject to a ratification process by this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Well, let us hear the fella—I call Richard Graham.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Speaker.

One of the most exciting developments of recent times has been the announcement from the University of Manchester of a way of desalinating water through graphene sieves, which can turn it into drinking water. That has huge implications around the world. Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest possible benefits is the decrease in the number of water bottles, which so often find their way into the marine ecosystem?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

It was a pleasure to have the hon. Lady on the Agriculture Bill Committee, where she raised some of those issues. In particular, we discussed the impact of imported soya on our environment and the steps we are taking to reduce that.

[Mr Speaker]

“Banging on” in this place tends to be a prerequisite of achieving anything. It is the colloquial version of my “persistence pays” principle.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

Would a Minister be willing to meet me to discuss banning the use of bolt guns as a method of putting down greyhounds that are no longer used in the racing industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well. I call Barry Sheerman.

[Mr Sheerman]

“Oh, very well”, Mr Speaker? I am actually going to ask a topical question, unlike some of our colleagues.

May I remind the ministerial team that until we came under European regulation, we were the dirty person of Europe? We filled our seas with sewage, and we buried our waste in holes in the ground. Did the Minister see the wonderful BBC programme only last Sunday showing the real curse of agricultural plastic waste, which we are doing very little about? Will she and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food get together with others, on an all-party basis, to try to clean up the environment and get a good deal from Europe?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

That was nearly as long as a speech in an Adjournment debate, but the last one of those that the hon. Gentleman secured for me to respond to was about the circular economy of left-over paint, and he did not even show up for that.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I would say that he should read the resources and waste strategy. I have already answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham): I said that we are working on this. We need to work with farmers to make sure there is a secondary market for that sort of plastic bale.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the Minister managed to see the programme, but I dare say it is available on catch-up TV.

[Mr Sheerman]

“Countryfile”.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chi Onwurah]

At the last EFRA questions, the Secretary of State was in his place and he was typically effusive in his praise for the glorious north-eastern countryside that so many of my constituents enjoy. However, he refused to say how he would protect small-scale farmers, on whom the beauty and variety of our landscape depend, from the massive American agro-industrial machine. Will the Minister now set out his red lines to protect our landscape post Brexit?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

Well, it was vegan, but the Secretary of State had cheese.

There is definitely a consensus that no deal would be absolutely disastrous for the farming community. The Secretary of State is totally focusing on the risks of no deal, and to me that is something of a red herring. We could easily avoid no deal—it is entirely in the Prime Minister’s power to avoid no deal either by extending or revoking article 50 if we get to that cliff edge. Can the Secretary of State now talk about the deal that is being put before us for the meaningful vote and try to persuade us of the merits of that deal, rather than talking about no deal?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State might wish to describe to us his cheese selection and his salivation over it.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was happy to embrace my inner vegan with the hon. Lady earlier this month. We had some delicious vegan parsnip soup, and also some cheese that was produced by the Sustainable Food Trust.

I have sought to respond to questions from several colleagues about the impact of no deal, and I will say more about the merits of the deal in just a second. I will say, however, that it is not just within the power of the Government, but within the power of us all to ensure that we secure a deal. The hon. Lady is a constructive and pragmatic member of this House, and I know that she has concerns about the deal, but one of the best ways of avoiding no deal would be for her to join many other colleagues across the House in supporting the deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you made a new ruling on parliamentary language that I am not aware of?

[Mr Speaker]

I have made no new ruling on parliamentary language. I was listening, as colleagues would expect, with my customary rapt attention to the observations of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I richly enjoyed those observations and particularly his exceptionally eloquent delivery of them, which I feel sure he must have been practising in front of the mirror for some significant number of hours, but on the subject of that which is orderly—because a number of Members were chuntering from a sedentary position about whether the use of the word beginning with b and ending in s which the Secretary of State delighted in regaling the House with was orderly—the answer is that there was nothing disorderly about the use of the word; I think it is a matter of taste.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I advise the House that on account of the number of Members wishing to contribute to the debate, it will be necessary to begin with an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to make the next contribution, I am sorry to remind Opposition Members of what they will have already seen for themselves: namely, that the speech-time facility is not functioning. I am advised that it will not be repaired until the House is not sitting. Opposition Members, who will doubtless be very aggrieved, cannot go on for as long as they want, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) chunters hopefully from a sedentary position. They are disadvantaged, but they will have to be assisted by the Whip on duty, who can gesticulate as and when he or she thinks fit. That is a practice not entirely unknown or uncongenial, in my experience, to a Whip.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate, but this seems important. The media are reporting that No. 10 Downing Street is briefing that its interpretation of yesterday’s vote and the requirements of the legislation is that, if the Prime Minister’s motion is defeated next Tuesday, the debate on the plan B that the Government would be obliged to bring forward would be restricted to only 90 minutes, and they would allow only one amendment to be chosen and voted upon.

Is that your understanding? Can you confirm that the Government could in fact provide as much time as they wanted for a constitutional debate that is so contested and so crucial to the future of our country, and that they could provide for as many amendments to be considered as is needed? Given that the Prime Minister and the Government have been saying that they want to listen, reach out and build a consensus, how, if this is the case, can we believe anything that the Government say?

[Mr Speaker]

I will respond, but as the Chief Whip is signalling an interest in contributing, I am happy to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Julian Smith)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to confirm, no decision has been made along the lines of what the right hon. Lady has said. The Government will do everything they can to ensure that the House is fully consulted in every eventuality next week, and the information that she has is not correct.

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to respond to the point of order from the right hon. Lady, and I thank her for giving me notice of it. She has kindly shown me the press report to which she refers, but she knows that I have not yet had the opportunity to study it carefully. Moreover, it is not our normal practice to respond to any and every press report based upon a briefing from someone who perhaps thinks that he or she knows what the procedures are in this place but does not always fully do so.

It is true to say that the default position under Standing Order No. 16(1) is that debates pursuant to an Act of Parliament must be concluded after 90 minutes, flowing from which there tends to be a practical restriction on amendments because the time has lapsed, and therefore only one amendment in such a hypothetical situation would be taken. However, it is also true to say that such provision is often disapplied by an Order of the House.

I must emphasise that all of this is hypothetical at this stage, and I do not think it would be helpful to speculate on what may happen subsequent to the decision of the House next Tuesday. I can, however, confirm that the right hon. Lady is quite correct in saying that it is perfectly open to the Government, if such a situation were to arise, to provide for a much fuller debate. In those circumstances, there would predictably be a significant number of colleagues who would want to put their own propositions on the paper. I am extremely confident that if that hypothetical scenario were to arise, colleagues would assert themselves.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you confirm that it would be open to Members of the House to seek to remedy this potential problem by tabling an amendment to the withdrawal agreement motion for next week, because this matter would inevitably flow from a consequence of the withdrawal agreement not being carried by the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to reflect on that. It may be possible for that to be done. If it is possible for it to be done, it may well be a matter of judgment as to whether it is thought to be worth doing. The reason there is no great hurry on that matter is, of course, that I am not even in a position, under the Order passed on 4 December, to select amendments until the final day of the debate. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman heard me explaining, in response to a point of order from the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) this morning, that it was quite wrong for people to talk about amendments that had been accepted. She mentioned to me in her point of order that allegedly the Government had signalled their acceptance of a particular amendment. That was a wholly inapposite report or claim. No amendment has been accepted at this stage, because no amendment has yet been selected. I am not allowed to select any amendment until the final day, so some people really do need to keep up with what the procedure is. The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of time in which to reflect on these matters.

[Yvette Cooper]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the debate further, but the response from the Chief Whip was obviously helpful, even if it is slightly odd that he has now left the Chamber before the conclusion of any further discussion on the point of order. Do you think, Mr Speaker, it would be helpful for there to be further clarification from the Government Benches about what plan there would be for further debates, so that we can have reassurance?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the right hon. Lady is twofold. First, I do not control the Government Chief Whip any more than the Government Chief Whip controls me. I think we ought to be clear about that. I cannot comment on his whereabouts and they are not a matter of any great concern to me. Secondly, if the right hon. Lady or other colleagues want to explore these matters in the debate in the coming days, they absolutely can do so. All I can say is that, in support of Members in all parts of the House and of all shades of opinion, I will always have regard to the opportunities for Members to put their points and to advance their causes. These are not matters purely for the Treasury Bench. I think we are clear about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), I must advise the House that, after she has spoken, the time limit will have to be reduced to six minutes. [Interruption.] Yes, I recognise that it is a pity, but very many Members wish to take part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I am delighted to know that, and I am delighted that that is the hon. Lady’s view. It is important that Front Benchers do likewise, and I was a bit disappointed that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles did not take up the invitation to participate in establishing what this House can support.

I think we all admire the optimism and enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), which he referred to. This is a matter that merits such optimism and enthusiasm. His contribution to the debate, looking at how energy can be applied to finding a solution, is much to be commended.

Let me reflect on the amendments that indicate the progress that can be made. It is important to reflect that the standards of workers’ rights we have in this country not only meet but often far exceed EU standards. The right hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out that the UK offers 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay, compared with the 14 weeks required under the relevant EU directive. We in this House have given fathers and partners a statutory right to paternity leave and pay—something the EU is only starting to consider. Less than a month ago, I said at the Dispatch Box that we were laying legislation to repeal the so-called Swedish derogation from a European directive, removing what many in this country see as a loophole that allows employment agencies to undercut agency workers’ wages.

Those sentiments and that approach are reflected in amendment (p), which was tabled by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues. It is in keeping with traditions on both sides of the House, and we very much agree with its spirit and intention. Today’s contributions show what can be done in this instance and may be a totem for what is possible more broadly. We stand ready to engage in discussions on the amendment. As ever, we need to look very carefully at its implications and drafting, but I am hopeful that it will be possible for us to accept it.

The amendment rightly mentions the environment. We have no intention of lowering our ambitious environmental protections after we leave the EU. We have a duty to continue the leadership we have exercised on that in Europe and across the world. It seems to me that we also have a responsibility, given that time is running out before 29 March, to take advantage of the availability of a means of preventing a damaging no-deal Brexit. It is difficult for investors around the world to understand why the most rudimentary trade terms available between any nations on earth should govern our relationship with the rest of the European Union.

I hope that the tenor of today’s debate continues in the days ahead. I say on behalf of my colleagues that hon. Members’ contributions will be listened to seriously, taken into account and acted upon, as I indicated in response to the amendment relevant to today’s discussions, so that, in the weeks ahead, the whole House can move towards a greater sense of compromise and resolution to implement the decision that the people of the United Kingdom took. At the same time, we must ensure that we can move our economy forward and strengthen our workers’ rights and environmental protections, recognising the House’s ambition to establish this country, now and in the future, as one of the most successful and admired in the world in terms of the economy, workers’ rights and the environment. I commend the motion to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Amanda Milling.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow (Order, 9 January).

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to the Adjournment.

I find it extraordinary, to the point of being inconceivable, that all colleagues present should not wish to remain so in order to hear the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) dilate on the subject of the Europa School, Culham, but if there are colleagues who do not feel motivated to do so—unaccountable though I find that—I trust that they will leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that those of us who remain, including the occupant of the Chair, can listen with our customary rapt attention to the hon. Gentleman.

Ivory Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 78.

[Dr Coffey]

It is my great pleasure to be able to open Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Ivory Bill.

I thank the House for its kindness while I recovered from my illness, and particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who has successfully taken the legislation through to this stage. The Bill is already having an impact internationally, with action on ivory sales now being consulted on or committed to in Cambodia, Laos and Singapore, while the Australian Parliament’s federal inquiry into ivory urged the Australian Government to follow the UK’s approach, which it described as

“a model of best practice.”

The Government made a number of amendments to the Bill during its passage through the other place, in response to the Committees of that House and individual peers. Following careful consideration of the reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, the Government tabled a number of amendments to address the concerns raised. The Government also tabled amendments on conclusion of its consultation with the devolved Administrations, to recognise the devolved aspects of the Bill, and in response to concerns raised in the other place over matters of insurance. In setting out the reasoning behind the Lords amendments today, I will focus my remarks on the effect of the amendments. I should point out that many minor and consequential amendments are a direct consequence of the substantive amendments.

The first amendments I will turn to in this group concern powers to make regulations. Amendments 1, 5, 7, 8, 18, 20 and 66 reflect recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. One of the recommendations was that negative resolution regulations should be used instead of guidance to set out certain matters. Amendments 1, 5, 8 and 18 have been made to replace references to guidance with regulations. Amendment 1 refers to the Secretary of State’s power to specify any other matters, in addition to rarity and importance, that experts should take into account when assessing an item for exemption under clause 2. Such other matters will now be specified in regulations, rather than guidance. Amendments 5, 8 and 18 will require that regulations rather than guidance are used to specify any additional information, beyond that already listed in the Bill, that an applicant must provide when applying for an exemption certificate under clause 2 or registration under clause 10 respectively.

Amendments 7 and 20 remove two powers to issue guidance. Those pieces of guidance would have set out how applications for exemption certificates and registrations must be made, for example requiring that applications be made electronically or online. The Government have decided to allow maximum flexibility with regard to how applications may be made, and therefore consider that these powers are no longer necessary. While we expect the majority of registrations to be made online, there will be the facility for owners to request forms by telephone or post. I would like to reassure the House that, while important details will be set out in regulations, the Government will also produce detailed information for users to explain the new system.

A second recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was that the Government should include in the Bill more details about the appeals process. This appeals process is for appeals against the refusal or revocation of an exemption certificate applied for under clause 2. Amendments 10, 11, 13 and 14 provide these further details. The amendments name the first-tier tribunal as the appeal body and set out the main grounds for making an appeal, and the powers of the tribunal.

I turn to the amendments to the powers conferred on officers of the regulator. The Bill refers to these officers as “accredited civilian officers”, and I will do the same. Amendments 21 to 53, 58, 61 and 74 to 78 were made in response to concerns raised by the Constitution Committee, and by other peers, which was concerned about the powers of accredited civilian officers. The Government considered these concerns carefully and have put forward amendments 46 and 47 in response.

Those amendments create after clause 22 new clauses that confer powers of entry and other powers on accredited civilian officers. All other references to powers conferred on accredited civilian officers are to be removed from the Bill, ensuring that their role as assessors of compliance is clearly defined and separate from that of police and customs officers. That is a careful balance, as without accredited civilian officers the duty of assessing compliance would fall solely to the police.

As a result of the amendments, an accredited civilian officer would no longer have the power to enter a premises using a warrant. This will be available only to police and customs officers. An accredited civilian officer would, however, be able to enter a non-dwelling premises that they reasonably believe to be connected to ivory dealing, such as a shop or a warehouse, for the purpose of assessing compliance or if they reasonably believe that there is relevant evidence on that premises. They must give reasonable notice prior to entering.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Has the Minister had any discussions with the Prime Minister about her withdrawal agreement’s implications for the transport and sale of livestock from Northern Ireland to the rest of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Speaker]

That was not altogether adjacent to an inquiry about an independent farming policy. The hon. Gentleman might more usefully have shoehorned his inquiry into Question 2. Because he is a very public-spirited fellow, I will let him off on this occasion, but he should not repeat his offence.

[George Eustice]

The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on a future economic partnership set out the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s approach to trying to deal with issues relating to the Northern Ireland border, and I am sure that we have many days of discussion on those matters to look forward to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I have enormous affection and respect for the hon. Gentleman, and he makes his case with characteristic fluency, but I fear he has been misled. The truth is that, as an independent coastal state, we will be able to decide who comes into our waters and on what terms. It is perhaps rare for me to quote the French President, Emmanuel Macron—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman quote the French President.

[Michael Gove]

The soi-disant Jupiterian President was, nevertheless, speechless with rage on Sunday when he discovered that this withdrawal agreement and the future political declaration mean that France will not have access to our waters, save on our terms. His anger should be a cause for celebration on both sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Yes, I do. It is vital that we are there getting the best possible deal for this country. I said that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) was probably the strongest voice for the fishing industry in this House, but there is stiff competition for that role now that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) is here. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues, and those in the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and elsewhere, who recognise that there is a sea of opportunity for our fishing industry as an independent coastal state.

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State is characteristically keen to keep all his Back-Bench colleagues happy, and that will have been noted by the House.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

In five weeks, the EU discard ban will kick in. While much attention is on what fishing will look like after Brexit, this poorly implemented discard ban before Brexit risks tying up our fishing fleet, especially mixed fisheries such as those in the south-west. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the concerns of the fishing industry are listened to and that this ban does not result in its boats being tied up alongside?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I note that after 13 years of a Labour Government nothing similar was introduced. I have looked into this issue carefully and visited several countries. The thing is, the front end is similar for everybody, but we must get the back-end solution right, because that is what we need to deliver the scheme effectively, rather than just getting headlines.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that topical questions are supposed to be significantly briefer.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Sorry. I will translate. The French President is, on this occasion, wrong.

[Mr Speaker]

Stunning, absolutely stunning—the articulacy and the accent. What a dramatic performance by the right hon. Gentleman.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I believe that the 13 Scottish Tories have all signed the latest pledge of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to reject the Prime Minister’s deal. Will the Secretary of State do the same?

[Mr Speaker]

In fact, I was almost as pleased with the right hon. Gentleman’s performance as possibly was the right hon. Gentleman.

[Michael Gove]

No, I am afraid not, Mr Speaker. I thought that it was a hesitant and fumbling schoolboy attempt of the language, but if it brought you pleasure then my day has not been entirely wasted.

The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is clear that the Government’s approach to safeguarding our fishing stocks, and indeed enhancing opportunities, is one that we wholeheartedly endorse, which is why it is behind the deal that the Prime Minister has secured.

[Mr Speaker]

I so enjoyed it, and the right hon. Gentleman knows how much I enjoyed it.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

T7. In many ways, the UK has led the agenda on wildlife protection. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would enhance that reputation if, like France, the Netherlands and Australia, we banned the import of so-called hunting trophies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

What a delicious choice—I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Can the right hon. Lady outline whether she has had any discussions with the Home Office, to request that Asia Bibi and her family are offered asylum in the United Kingdom, and the outcome of those discussions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The Church of England has seen increasing attendance at its church services. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that crib services and Christingle services are very important for small people.

I would like to encourage you, Mr Speaker, to have a look at the Follow the Star campaign. It is different for a change: it does not start on the first day of Advent, but covers the 12 days of Christmas. When you and I have finished washing up after our Christmas lunches, we might sit down and reflect on the true meaning of Christmas and make sure that our children do get it.

[Mr Speaker]

I shall always profit from the right hon. Lady’s counsels, and I solemnly commit to take that advice on Christmas day.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and his keen interest in the need to drive forward ambitious plans to plant more trees. He is a tree champion in his own right. Our national tree champion, Sir William Worsley, is launching the first forestry investment zone pilot in Cumbria today. That new project will help landowners to create vital new woodland and unlock the economic benefits of forestry in areas not traditionally used for tree planting. The project will also provide lessons on how best to support forestry investment.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Tom Tugendhat, who has Question 6. Where is the fella? He is not here. I hope he is not indisposed. I think it is more likely that the hon. Gentleman is planting a tree.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Trees play a vital role in upper catchment management, by preventing flooding. Environment Agency representatives said in a meeting last week that upper catchment management needs prioritisation. How is the Minister planning for that, and will he ensure that there is provision for it in the Budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I will not be building them myself, but—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

That is extremely disappointing.

[Michael Gove]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, perhaps at Holland Park comprehensive we could make it part of the design and technology projects that our respective children are engaged in, to ensure that there are drinking fountains in west London and beyond.

We are working with water companies and other commercial operators to ensure that drinking fountains are more widespread. It was a great Victorian innovation to bring clean drinking water to everyone and ensure that we did not have to rely on private provision for the very stuff of life. We will ensure that there are more drinking fountains, and further steps will be announced later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

If I can encourage the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) to overcome any unnecessary shyness, and in light of the fact that we are not likely to reach question 13, I would say to her that her question is very similar to this question, so perhaps she would like to make her point now.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

13. I was hoping we would get to question 7, but thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In July this year, the National Audit Office produced a report that was very critical of DEFRA’s oversight of the scheme, which sends half of all our mostly plastic recycling material abroad, mainly to China. With China indicating that it intends to stop the importation of solid and plastic waste, what is DEFRA going to do? How is it going to massively reduce plastic waste in this country, and when will we see the resources and waste strategy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

That decision is above my pay grade—it would be made by the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House—but, as I indicated to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), I am passionately keen to see an end to animal cruelty.

[Mr Speaker]

Mike Wood? Not here. Well, we cannot conclude these proceedings without hearing from Mr Tom Pursglove.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

12. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provisions of the 125-year leases for developments between Forest Holidays and the Forestry Commission to protect the environment surrounding those developments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)]

You and I, Mr Speaker, are very keen to ensure that there is appropriate protection for endangered species. We all know that charismatic megafauna and apex predators—the big beasts that attract public attention, and those at the top of the food chain—are increasingly under threat. That was why, at last week’s illegal wildlife trade conference, a London declaration commanded the support of more than 50 nations, all pledged to support our world-leading ivory ban and the other measures that we take to ensure that the species that we value are protected as part of an ecosystem that we can all cherish.

[Mr Speaker]

I am deeply obliged to the Secretary of State, I am sure.

[Liz Twist]

How does the Government’s strong support for fracking, against the wishes of communities who are worried about their local environment, fit in with the Secretary of State’s vision of a green Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

It fits in perfectly. One thing we all know is that we will need a mix of energy sources in the future. Thanks to the leadership of this Government—I must single out for praise my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth—we have seen a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions alongside economic growth, but hydrocarbons are a critical part of our future energy mix, and hydraulic fracturing will be an important part of that. We need only look at countries such as Germany that have, as a direct result of pursuing the wrong policies, increased greenhouse gas emissions and also not played their part in both dealing with climate change and ensuring that we have the required electricity for ultra low emission vehicles and everything else that will be part of a green future. It is absolutely critical that we are hard-headed and realistic; Conservative Members are, unlike sadly, on this one occasion, the Opposition.

[Mr Speaker]

We are having an oratorical feast today. It is just a terrible shame that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) is not here, because I feel sure that he would have added to the flow of oratory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Recently, shortly and yes.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

T5. When does the Secretary of State expect to announce a plastic bottle deposit scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I commend the Government on banning microbeads, but may I urge them to now turn their attention to microfibres, Mr Speaker? I do not know whether Mrs Speaker does the washing, but every time we do a wash, 700,000 microfibres could go down the drain. I am joining the Women’s Institute to host an event on this in Parliament on 30 October; will the Minister join us?

[Mr Speaker]

I always feel better informed, and almost improved as a human being, when I hear the hon. Lady offer her disquisitions on these important matters.

[Dr Coffey]

I should like to thank my hon. Friend, who was an excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary in our Department. She is now able to ask questions in the Chamber again. I have already met the WI to talk about this matter, and there are certain things that people can do, such as using fabric conditioner to reduce the amount of microfibres that get released from synthetic clothing. She will be aware that we are considering a number of issues, and that is why we have had a recent call for evidence on the impact of tyres and brakes, which are also a notable source of microfibres in our marine systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good to see the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). I understand why he was delayed, but it is good to see him here in the Chamber.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know that 82% of the beer that is drunk in our pubs is brewed in the UK. Jodie Kidd and other publicans will be presenting a 105,000-signature petition to Downing Street today to back the Long Live the Local campaign on beer duty. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Chancellor is fully aware of the contribution that our beer and pub sectors make to British farming, as well as to the wider economy and society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We have just had a reference to water, so we have to hear from Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Will the independent review into the allocation of domestic farm support, which was announced this week by the Government, also consider processes by which future financial frameworks will be agreed? To that end, would the formation of a dedicated intergovernmental body be something that the Government could explore?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I know that brewery, not from having visited it, but from having sampled its products. It does amazing work, and my right hon. Friend is right to champion craft beer. Mr Speaker, I hope that you and I will have the opportunity to share some very soon.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, that sounds like an invitation that I cannot possibly resist.

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the schoolchildren and adult volunteers who spent two days planting a new orchard at the Charterhouse, one of Coventry’s medieval buildings, as part of a larger restoration and renewal scheme? Does he agree that the orchard is a fantastic community initiative and, as part of the wider project, a great educational resource for my city?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. We all have a part to play, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He had a distinguished track record in local government before coming to this place, and his leadership in this area is exemplary.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. Splendid.

The right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Agriculture Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the names of the representatives of the official Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), then my right hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) and for Wokingham (John Redwood), and then my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston).

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The approach the Secretary of State is taking is most engaging, but it is not necessary for him to conduct an orchestra in proceeding with the debate, nor is it necessary to give a precise chronological guide to his intended order of taking interventions. Nevertheless, it is a notable eccentricity, which the House might enjoy. I call Sir Hugo Swire.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, as I think you have just given me an earlier slot than my right hon. Friend was indicating so effortlessly, like Herbert von Karajan.

My right hon. Friend just talked about supermarkets’ desire to stock more British and locally sourced products, which if true is manifestly a good thing. Will he commit to conducting a root and branch overhaul of food labelling and the country of origin system, which is currently misleading and has often been abused? The British consumer deserves to know where food is produced and where it is packaged and not to be misled by labelling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making two important points. First, at the beginning of the Bill we stress that grants can be made by any Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to improve food productivity in the United Kingdom, but we have also made provisions so that the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly can follow their own policies in their devolved Administrations in tune with the principle of respecting the devolution settlement across the United Kingdom. I regret that the Scottish Government have not taken advantage of such provisions, despite repeated lobbying from Members of Parliament who represent Scottish farming constituencies. I hope that the Scottish Government and the excellent Minister, Fergus Ewing, will pay attention to the demands from my hon. Friends, who have been crystal clear that the Bill provides a greater degree of clarity and certainty about food production and the environment than the Scottish Government have yet been capable of providing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Davies.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I preferred the way my right hon. Friend was conducting matters, as I would have been called first.

Is a specific, ring-fenced budget for agriculture to be agreed under the Bill? Will there be ring-fenced provision for the devolved Governments in times to come?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak in the debate, and I broadly welcome the Bill. The sheer number of Members who have participated means that there will be a lot of scrutiny, which is of course a good thing. As an Essex MP, I have the privilege of representing a part of the country with some brilliant food producers and farmers, and some fine landscapes and environmental features. The Secretary of State will recall from his visit to Tiptree just last month, where he was hosted by Wilkin & Sons, the finest producer of jams and preserves in the world—I think he enjoyed some when he was there —that farmers across the country will judge the success of this legislation on how it enables the right kind of stewardship, not just for food and farming, but for agricultural policy going forward.

One of the biggest advantages of leaving the EU should be that we will have the freedom to establish our own regulatory frameworks for agriculture, food and farming. This is an enabling Bill, with much legislation to follow, but I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that every possible approach, regulation and detail both supports and promotes our farmers as well as UK agriculture, food and produce. We have the benefit of enjoying much of that produce domestically, but we also know that our farmers and those who work in the agricultural sector want to do much more to export globally and showcase their products internationally. We now have a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate that we are great producers and are ambitious to export more, so I would welcome a commitment from Ministers that there will be a strong focus on exporting and that we will do everything possible through this Bill to back exporters.

Farmers in my constituency often find themselves dealing with the costs of rearing animals to welfare standards that are higher than those in the rest of the European Union. As we have heard today, our EU membership has prevented us from blocking imports when they fail to meet our high standards, but we can now address such concerns. For example, while pig farmers in my constituency adhere to the ban on sow stalls, they know that producers in other EU countries are flouting the rules. We should get on the side of our pig farmers and bat for them on the challenges that they face. Farmers want assurances that our post-Brexit agricultural policy will not place them at a competitive disadvantage when there are lower standards across the EU.

I welcome this important Bill for so many reasons, and we now have the chance to back our farmers and to support them on animal health, welfare standards, high-quality food production and the all-important public goods that we have heard about in today’s great debate. The Bill is vital, just as it is vital, while the negotiations with the EU are ongoing, that the Government protect our agricultural sector, our farmers and our producers. We need to challenge some of the controls from Brussels that the Secretary of State mentioned earlier on.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for concluding her outstanding oration.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

It is a great pleasure to welcome the hon. Lady back to the House.

[Dr Coffey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great pleasure to be back, and I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) for the fantastic work he did.

Last year, we were listening to hon. Members and the industry, which is why we changed the criteria for the woodland carbon fund and the woodland creation planning grant to make them more attractive to applicants. I am pleased to say that countryside stewardship applications have increased; we have established a large-scale woodland creation unit; we are providing funding to kick-start the northern forest; and we have appointed the national tree champion, Sir William Worsley, to help drive the growth in forestry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The Department for Transport has already issued a grant so that tree planting can start, so that is already under way. Julian Glover is undertaking a review of national parks and we want to understand the future perspective. I am sure that my right hon. Friend’s application will be considered carefully.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) may not know this, because she does not have eyes in the back of her head, but I can advise her that she has now thoroughly wound up the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan).

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Pursuant to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), I remind the Minister that HS2 will go through Buckinghamshire and the Chiltern hills. Is she aware that we are contemplating applying for national park status for the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty? That would help to protect what ancient woodland and trees are left after HS2 has gone through the middle of Buckinghamshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well; I call Mr Philip Dunne.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister back to her place. On the proper stewardship of trees, is she satisfied that the existing arrangements between the Forest Holidays group and the Forestry Commission fully accord with the commission’s statutory objectives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Almost everything in that question was wrong, but that does not surprise me because almost everything in the Scottish National party’s position on fisheries is wrong. It wants to stay in the European Union and therefore in the common fisheries policy and yet it wants Scotland’s fishermen to enjoy all the advantages of being outside the common fisheries policy. Some Members of this House have been accused of wanting to have their cake and eat it. I am afraid that SNP Members want to have a whole chain of bakeries and eat everything in them. If hypocrisy were a term that was allowed to be used in this House, then it would fit the Scottish National party like a bunnet.

[Mr Speaker]

There is no prohibition on the use of the term. It can apply to a collective, but not to an individual. The judgment as to whether the Minister is on the right side of the line falls to me. Happily, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, he has not erred.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Persuade me that the common rulebook is not the acquis by another name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for being so generous about some of the activities I undertook when I had a sabbatical from the Front Bench earlier in this Parliament. Of course, she is very flattering. I do not know that I have the diplomatic skills to bring the President of the United States into the same space that she and I are in when it comes to fighting climate change, but believe me, I will do my best.

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State should not undersell himself; he really should not. Do not break the habit of a lifetime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

It seems only right, in Environment questions, to call someone called Mr Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Diolch, Mr Speaker.

What consideration has the Secretary of State made of ways in which the UK Government might intervene to alleviate the pressures faced by farmers across Wales as a consequence of the recent dry weather, particularly the pressures on the already dwindling fodder reserves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

My personal view is that the approach taken by countries such as Sweden, Norway and, more recently, Canada and Ireland to outlaw paying for sex is a policy worth looking at, and is infinitely preferable to the approach taken in countries such as Germany, which has liberalised prostitution. That is a personal view and not necessarily the view of the Church of England, but it can have escaped no one that sexual exploitation is a horrific aggravation of the crime of modern slavery.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) wants to ask about the Clewer initiative, on which he has a related question which might otherwise not be reached. I am all agog. Let us hear the fellow.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

11. I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, particularly for mentioning the Churches’ Clewer initiative, which encourages members of the public to use an app. Admirable though that is, does my right hon. Friend think that it should have been left to the Churches to take the initiative to protect vulnerable people from exploitation in unregulated hand car washes, or should regulatory bodies themselves have taken such a step?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

It might be thought to be a helpful prompt if I advise the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) that inter-faith dialogue can embrace the subject of the evils of modern-day slavery, in which I know she has an intense interest.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend’s response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). Does she agree that trafficking women into prostitution is a most heinous form of violence against women and girls and that, if we are to review the law on prostitution, a priority must be to improve exit strategies for these exploited women?

[Mr Speaker]

And one would assume that it was a matter that fell within the rubric of inter-faith dialogue.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

We need to understand, in the world today more than ever, the different faiths of the world and their tenets, and be respectful of the fact that 84% of the world’s population adhere to one of the great religions of the world. By working through religious institutions in all these countries, which should all condemn outright slavery in all its forms, I hope that we can work together internationally to bring an end to the terrible exploitation to which my hon. Friend refers.