Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. It was important, when the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was set aside, that a commitment was made to bring legislation forward, and this is a key element of it. It is a key element of our manifesto commitment that we will fulfil, and frankly the other House should stop bleating about this element. We will get the other aspects done. I myself am taking a private Member’s Bill through that covers one elements of the kept animals Bill. We should not be playing tit for tat on this. It is about something that really matters, the welfare of animals, and this is a really important stage.

The Minister has read out a litany of what we have achieved in our time in office. The one person who cannot speak in this debate is my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who took through the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 with the support of the Government. As the chief executive of the RSPCA said, that was a monumental moment for animal welfare legislation, empowering the courts to hand out sentences that more accurately reflect the seriousness of these crimes.

I strongly support the Bill. I say to the House, and to the other House, that it is a simple, straightforward Bill and it could get through by the end of March and be done by Easter, without question. This is not the moment to add other elements left, right and centre. Let us keep it simple and keep our manifesto commitments. I hope the House of Lords respects the will of this House, and I look forward to the Bill not coming back but becoming an Act before the end of the spring.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know, having grown up in Liverpool, how beautiful the coastal constituency of Wirral West is. The Rivers Trust found that a sewer storm overflow in Caldy spilled 75 times in 2022, for a total of more than 1,700 hours, discharging directly into the Dee estuary. It is a very beautiful part of the world, where people go to enjoy the beach, let their children play, enjoy water sports and so forth. It is also very important environmentally—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is meant to be making an intervention, not a speech. It has to be brief.

[Dr Coffey]

I share with the hon. Lady a love for that part of the north-west. I grew up there, and I used to cycle down to the River Mersey regularly on the Otterspool prom. I was not quite so much a visitor to the other side, apart from when I was visiting family elsewhere.

It is thanks to the openness of this Government in getting the monitoring done and publishing it that the scale of the scourge of sewage has been unveiled. The hon. Lady should welcome that. She should also welcome the active plans that we have been undertaking, with investment, so that even more action will be under way to reduce that sewage, if not eliminate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

This is not just the responsibility of the water companies, because it is not just water assets that discharge into our rivers. Within a short section of the River Tame in Greater Manchester there are three water assets, but there are also Johnson brook and Wilson brook. Johnson brook regularly discharges raw sewage into the Tame because of a misconnected sewer somewhere along the reaches of that brook, and Wilson brook regularly discharges chemicals into the Tame because of industrial processes. The Environment Agency’s actions are appalling. What more is the Secretary of State doing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot have these long interventions, because too many Members want to speak. It is simply not fair.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific constituency matter. I am sure that if he were to write to me or to the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), we could follow it up.

I am conscious that a great many Members have applied to speak today, but I want to make a few more points clear. I have been advised by my officials that issuing automatic penalties could actually limit subsequent liability for more serious enforcement action and higher penalties when an investigation found that an incident was more severe than was initially thought. When a pollution incident occurs, the severity of the incident and the degree of culpability need to be properly investigated. It is through such proper investigation that the Environment Agency can determine the most appropriate response, including criminal prosecution for the most serious incidents.

I am sure that the policy is well intentioned, but it strongly risks making enforcement weaker and potentially letting the most serious polluters off the hook. Water companies must be liable for any illegal activity: polluters must pay. That is why, since 2015, the Environment Agency has carried out more than 50 prosecutions, securing court fines of over £140 million, including the record-breaking fine of £90 million handed to Southern Water. Again, we are going further to ensure that water companies face substantial penalties, which are easier to deploy than going through the courts. We are consulting on reforms to the civil penalties that the Environment Agency can issue to make the process quicker and easier. As I have said, the Government’s preferred option is to remove the cap on penalties entirely, which would pave the way for unlimited penalties for water companies that break the rules.

There is a great deal more that I could have said, but we listened to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton for more than half an hour, and it is important for other Members to be able to contribute to the debate.

It is the role of Ofwat to scrutinise proposals from the water companies to make sure that customers get good value for money. We will try to carry out other activities such as trying to reduce the cost of these new projects overall, but I also want to flag up that we will continue to ensure that we deliver our integrated plan for water. It is a blueprint for a truly national effort to meet the stretching targets that we set through the Environment Act 2021, and it includes actions to tackle every source of pollution, including sewage discharge and pollution from agriculture, plastics, road run-off, chemicals and pesticides. The plan is underpinned by significant investment. Its scale and deliverability, plus the detail of it, mean that it will go further and faster than anything we have ever done before, and it is certainly going further and faster than most developed nations have ever gone before.

In summary: Labour wants monitoring; we have already delivered it. Labour wants fines; we have delivered record fines. Labour wants larger penalties; we are making them unlimited. Labour says that it wants stronger sanctions, but it would in effect weaken them. Labour wants a plan; we have already published one. Ours is fully costed and credible. Labour says that its plans will not impact household bills, but it cannot say how much they will cost. It was a Labour Government who were taken to court by the European Union for allowing the discharge of sewage, and 13 years later in Wales, where Labour is actually in government, they are discharging sewage almost twice as often as in England. That is not a plan; it is an uncosted political game and a recipe for tripling the average water bill. I encourage the House to support our amendment today, to stop the false attacks and to focus on delivering cleaner water. That is something that all our constituents want.

Health and Social Care Update

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I do not have specific details about that matter, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State would be happy to follow up on that with the hon. Gentleman. I am very conscious about the impact of cancer. That is why, instead of having a 48-hour target, which would predominantly be predicted by emergency diagnosis from GPs, I want that to be a broader target, so that people who are showing symptoms and are concerned about seeing their doctor have that assurance that they will be seeing their GP, so that diagnosis can start as quickly as possible, particularly on issues such as cancer.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. That concludes the statement.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for debate. There is clearly disagreement in the House. That disagreement will have to stand.

[Dr Coffey]

I am simply quoting directly from the report.

My understanding is that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), as part of his oral evidence, recognised that if all Scottish MPs chose not to participate on English-only matters, the commission was not necessary. He said that given that that does not happen all the time—admittedly, that was under a different electoral scenario—there is

“a procedure and a process which is part of the rules of how we engage in issues which are English-only”.

He felt that the commission needed to answer that.

It has been claimed that this is a rushed process, that it is a non-issue and that these are partisan proposals, but the thrust of the proposals has been in our manifesto for the last three elections. The journey started with McKay, it continued with the Command Paper and the proposals were in our manifesto. Since coming back to the House, we have listened, reflected and given extra time for debate. There will be at least two months between the initial tabling of our proposals on 2 July and the decision by this House. In comparison, the Smith commission, although convened in September, started on 22 October and managed to conclude its significant piece of work within six weeks. That is the basis of the Scotland Bill in which the UK Parliament is transferring powers to the Scottish Parliament.

This is not a non-issue; it is an issue for several of my electors. We are ultimately addressing a question of fairness. It is claimed that the proposals are partisan, but it so happens that every Government elected since 1997—back when the Labour party used to win elections—have had a majority of English MPs, although in 2005 Labour received fewer votes in England than the Conservatives. We are trying to address an issue of fairness. I know that the Library papers say that only a few Divisions have happened where this would have been an issue, but we are still trying to address that issue.

There is no need for there to be gridlock. If it is evident that explicit consent will not be granted in the Legislative Grand Committee after Report stage, it would be a perfectly rational expectation that the Government would listen to the voices of those MPs for England or England and Wales, and would not try to impose something against their will in respect of those devolved matters.

I will turn to the subject of Speaker certification.