UK Food Shortages

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State’s response shows that she and her Government refuse to take any responsibility for their own shortcomings. Farmers across the UK have been warning of the risk of food shortages for some time as a result of rising costs and Brexit trade barriers. Why did the Government not heed those warnings? Who would have thought that, in 2023, the UK would be facing the problem of food shortages which, despite what we have been told, is uniquely affecting the UK? We are the only European country with empty supermarket shelves. The reality is that food shortages are due to low food production, which is in serious decline under this Government’s watch.

In addition, the supermarket sector has been “hurt horribly” by Brexit, according to the chief executive of Sainsbury’s. The chair of Save British Food has accused the Government of “absolute negligence”, of not caring about food production and of shattering food security. In all honesty, is the Secretary of State not embarrassed and ashamed that, under her and her Government’s watch, the UK is poorer, has less food, and has a declining agricultural sector and higher food costs because of Brexit failure and the empty rhetoric of taking back control?

[Dr Coffey]

I do not recognise a lot of what the hon. Lady said about food production. It might be true in Scotland, but that is a devolved matter—she might want to take a look. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady does not seem to take any ownership of what the SNP Government are doing in relation to farming policies. As we set out in the Government’s food strategy last year and in our manifesto, we want to maintain, if not increase, our domestic food security, which is what I said to the NFU yesterday. However, as she will know, there are a number of products that we cannot grow in this country and we also have a season. One of the main differences between our supermarkets and those in Europe is that our supermarkets often have a fixed price contract. In other countries, there is often a trend towards variable price contracts. We recognise that and will be going into that in detail with the supermarkets.

As I have said, there has been unusual weather in Morocco and south Spain, which has led to a temporary restriction—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) continues to chunter from a sedentary position. As I have said, it is for her and her Government in Scotland to decide what they are doing about food production. This Conservative Government back our farmers. We want them to grow food—that is the main purpose of farmers—and to make a good living out of it, and we will continue to support them in that. The £2.4 billion a year will go towards a combination of basic payments and the initiatives to make sure that we have a resilient, sustainable and profitable food industry for many generations to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The National Farmers Union of Scotland is calling on the UK Government to recognise the strategic importance of fertiliser amid a worsening food security crisis and a 200% increase in fertiliser costs. It is vital that more support is given to domestic food production. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the NFUS to discuss supporting domestic fertiliser production and building greater transparency in the market to drive resilience and security?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue, which is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries and I met the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to discuss this particular issue, and why that Secretary of State then took action by requiring information, so we are in active discussions about it. I am afraid I am not in a position to be able to share any more information, given the aspects of commercial sensitivity, but I can assure her that this Government are on the case.

[Patricia Gibson]

As well as concerns about fertiliser costs, the Government’s expected classification of farming as a non-high energy business in their review of the energy bill relief scheme is another body blow for farmers. It will inevitably push up inflation for food producers and consumers, worsening the disproportionate cost of living impact on rural communities. What steps will the Secretary of State take to mitigate the impact on farmers and rural businesses right now to help tame global inflationary pressures on domestic markets?

[Dr Coffey]

We have seen support to industry through this Government, recognising the price of energy, which was beyond the control of individual users. We have recently seen that wholesale prices have fallen to what they were before the illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine. We are trying to get to a situation where we stabilise the support we are giving, focusing particularly on recognised energy-intensive industries such as those represented by Members in the Chamber today.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are still 3 million people on legacy benefits. We estimate that about half of those people would be better off on universal credit and that a significant number of people would see no change, yet the scare stories and the fear that the Opposition generated are why people are still not transitioning across the system. They will do just that now, because this Parliament voted to end legacy benefits; it voted to have universal credit, so we are still, through our action programme, going to move people across to universal credit. I am with my hon. Friend that many people would actually and substantially be almost certainly better off if they moved. For those people, we have to have a managed migration. We have, of course, already put in place a transitional payment.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State said a moment ago that we are spreading scare stories. Can I say to her—she may wish to comment on this—that talking about the very real impact of losing £20 per week for people who are already struggling is not a scare story, but reality?

[Dr Coffey]

I recognise what the hon. Lady says. I am talking about the fact that universal credit has been demonised ever since it was introduced, yet people on legacy benefits—about half of them, we believe—would be financially better off if they moved over to universal credit, regardless of the £20. A significant proportion more would see no change to their financial income. People are scared to move over and that is why there is a missed opportunity for them to access some of the support we have today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

What recent assessment she has made of trends in levels of poverty.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Tackling poverty and levelling up opportunity will always be a priority for this Government, while using universal credit, which works for the labour market, to encourage people to move into and progress in work. There are several measures of poverty in the annual publication “Households below average income”—which is based on the annual family resources survey—of which absolute poverty before housing costs is the measure on which the Government most focus. Since 2010, 400,000 people have been lifted out of absolute poverty, including 100,000 children, and additionally, the rates of combined material deprivation and low income for children were at their joint lowest, at 11%, in 2018-19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

As often happens, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the Scottish Government Administration, Government Ministers tend to have discussions about policy while they are considering it. It is important, recognising the scale of the support that the Government have given to families, businesses and so on, that we continue to make these important decisions based on evidence in a competent, considered and compassionate way. That is exactly what the Chancellor and I will be doing in our recommendations for the Prime Minister.

[Patricia Gibson [V]]

Unless the universal credit and working tax credit uplift is made permanent, a further 60,000 people in Scotland, including 20,000 children, will be pushed into poverty. If this support is not extended beyond March, and if tackling poverty is a priority for the Secretary of State’s Government, as she says, will she set out what alternative and additional measures her Government intend to bring forward to tackle child poverty, which shamefully still affects 30% of children across the UK?

[Dr Coffey]

I have already set out the approach and discussions that the hon. Lady can be assured I am continuing to have with other Ministers, including the Chancellor. It is fair to say that we are very conscious that one of the ways to try and help people get out of poverty is through the plan for jobs. While I am conscious that there are not lots of jobs at the moment—although we estimate that there are over half a million vacancies—we want to try and make sure that people are ready to take advantage of the opportunities, particularly when we have seen the number of workless households sadly increase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I think it is the situation in Glasgow that a number of jobcentres were consolidated into one area. I am a great believer that, instead of necessarily investing money in bricks and mortar, we should invest in the people who will provide that support. In Scotland more broadly, we are aiming to hire over 800 new work coaches; 400 have already been recruited to date, and I know that some of those are in Glasgow.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Chancellor could have made the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent, but instead he has left households deeply concerned as they face the prospect of a cut to this vital lifeline in spring. We in the Scottish National party have pressed UK Ministers on this matter countless times. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether she discussed extending the universal credit uplift with the Chancellor prior to the spending review, and whether she believes that this extension should have been included?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the temporary extension of the £20 universal credit uplift was made in line with the fiscal measures made earlier this year. With regard to the benefit uprating, I put that through as that is the normal process that we go through, but, as has been indicated, we will continue to look at this matter again in the new year.

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I assure the House that the Government remain committed to supporting all the aims of REACH: to ensure a continuing high level of protection of human health and the environment; to promote alternative, non-animal methods for assessing chemical hazards; and to promote the free circulation of chemicals and enhance competitiveness and innovation.

By putting the regulations in place, we will make sure that we can operate a UK REACH regime after leaving the European Union. We are working closely with the HSE and the EA, as well as other regulators, to prepare for that national regime so that the change is as smooth as possible. We know the functions that are needed. I hope that in my opening remarks, I was able to convey the information that we will be providing the resources to fund the staff that are needed. I remind the House that the HSE will be building on the expertise that it already has from acting as the UK competent authority in the EU system and that it will be recruiting more staff to reflect its new and expanded role, as indeed, is the EA.

I do not agree that the arrangements that the REACH SI provides for on scientific advice are in any way weak. The UK agency must publish its scientific opinions, and when forming those opinions on authorisations and restrictions, the HSE must commission scientific knowledge and advice from suitably qualified or experienced persons who are independent of the agency. In a particular case, for example, where ECHA had already published robust evidence, the HSE must publish its justification for deciding not to take further advice. I assure the House that the HSE is not limited to getting its scientific advice from the UK, or indeed, even the EU.

The HSE must consult on and publish a statement about how it will comply with all these duties. That must happen within three months of exit, so we intend to have arrangements in place in UK REACH to allow stakeholders to observe discussions and considerations where this scientific advice is provided.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will not be giving way in my closing remarks—[Interruption.] Well, I am trying to answer the questions that I have already been asked. On what industry needs to know to do, we have had extensive discussions with a number of businesses and trade associations. We have launched a business readiness campaign targeting downstream users, in particular, and we continue to engage with the industry in that regard.

A question was raised about intellectual property. It is fair to say that the intellectual property remains with the company that submits it, but if companies already own the data, they can of course submit that to UK REACH. If not, they will need to arrange access and, as I pointed out, some are already starting to do so. Some—I mentioned CEFIC and the CIA in the UK—have encouraged their members with consortium registrations to make sure that they make that information readily available. Companies can, of course, employ ORs—only representatives—to hold a registration in the EU, just as they may do for access to other markets around the world, while maintaining their UK registration.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will not be giving way, as I have already made clear to the House. I am trying to answer the questions that I have already been provided with. On the other elements of registration, I am conscious that some companies have started to set up relationships with not only ORs, but other companies and to establish offices in the EU. Ireland is a particular favourite.

I want to clarify elements about animal testing—I know that this matters to the House. Within the EU—currently within ECHA—HSE and the EA have been at the forefront of pushing for alternatives to animal testing, and that will continue. UK REACH will continue to follow the “last resort” principle when it comes to possible animal testing. That works alongside other REACH drivers to reduce the amount of testing, for example, where industry must get the regulator’s agreement before carrying out a test. We will continue to work closely with the OECD to develop new alternatives so that we can understand chemical hazards without testing them on animals. We are determined that there should be no need for any additional animal testing for a chemical that has already been registered, unless it is subject to further evaluation that shows that the registration dossier is inadequate or that there are still concerns about the hazards and risks of the chemical.

The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) asked particularly about Rolls-Royce and products that have not yet been authorised. The point is that the EU has not authorised those chemicals for use. Therefore, we cannot say that they will be authorised by the time we leave on 29 March and we will not have the position to allow for future EU decisions. HSE will work with companies to help them to get into compliance as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred particularly to products that include chromium. I can categorically say that chromium is a clear carcinogen and it really matters that we have to keep strong controls on how it is used. That is why it concerns me that the Opposition are considering voting against this SI. I pointed out earlier that the Welsh Labour Government have endorsed this SI and want it to pass today. Without these regulations we would not have a chemical regulatory regime that was effective in maintaining human health, and the environment would be put at risk, which makes me even more astonished that the Green party would also contemplate that.

We need to make sure that our regulators have the tools to understand the hazards of the chemicals that we use, and without this SI we would not have the information available on how to mitigate those risks. I invite the House to approve the regulations.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of the tree, which can have multiple benefits, as she pointed out. Late last year, I visited St Vincent de Paul Primary School in Liverpool to support its tree-planting exercises. I can assure my hon. Friend that the environment is at the heart of the Government today, not just post-Brexit.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

8. What assessment she has made of the effect on the rural economy of the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 21st April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The Government have implemented significant change to Standing Orders since the beginning of this Session. On 22 October 2015, the House voted to approve new Standing Orders to implement English votes for English laws, delivering on a key Government commitment by giving England and Wales more control over decisions by which they alone are affected. Standing Orders undergo frequent revision. The Procedure Committee, the Clerks and the Government monitor their use to ensure that they reflect how business in the House is conducted in practice.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Procedure Committee, on which I sit, published a report this week on private Members’ Bills, calling for amendment to the Standing Orders because the present procedure has been brought into total disrepute due to the frequency with which Bills are talked out. Does the Leader of the House agree that the procedure is in total disrepute, or does he think that filibustering is democratic?

[Dr Coffey]

In this case, he is a she. We debated this last week in Westminster Hall, as the hon. Lady will be aware, as she participated in the debate. It would be remiss of me to answer before the Government published their response to the Procedure Committee’s report. We will publish our response in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Voter engagement in terms of general election turnout collapsed in the 2001 election, after four years of a Blair Government. I am pleased to say that voter turnout has increased. The hon. Lady talks about this institution potentially being corrupt. That is not the case, as we have high levels of integrity, but where MPs have been found to break the law, they have been sent to jail and that is where they belong.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

2. What parliamentary mechanisms are available to hon. Members to scrutinise Barnett consequentials within the estimates process. [R]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Estimates are formal requests for authorisation of expenditure proposed to the House by the Government. Scrutiny of these, which are effectively departmental budgets, is undertaken in a variety of ways, including debates selected by the Liaison Committee, and it is also open to Select Committees to examine these budgets. The Procedure Committee has recently announced that it will look at the House’s procedures for examining estimates and the passing of legislation that authorises this expenditure—the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, which we dealt with yesterday.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for her answer. May we have a commitment today that steps will be taken to modify the estimates process so that Members representing Scottish constituencies can properly scrutinise the impact of legislation on Scotland?

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I heartily concur with my hon. Friend. I hope that people in Scotland watching the debate on the Parliament channel will draw the inevitable conclusion.

Let us be clear that changes to Standing Orders almost always go through Committee scrutiny first, usually in the Procedure Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has noted in a point of order that were such changes to be made without scrutiny,

“any majority Government could change Standing Orders to restrict the voting rights of any Member without so much as a by-your-leave.”—[Official Report, 27 May 2015; Vol. 596, c. 65.]

Mr Speaker, who was in the Chair at the time, replied that it was “an extremely important point”.

Let me give some more context. We know that changes to Scotland’s block grant are made in line with UK spending changes on the basis of population percentages. The funding policy states that

“the system of devolved finance is subject to overall UK macroeconomic and fiscal policy.”

The system of devolved finance is, in fact, fully contingent on English finance. It is also a one-way street; Scottish Bills do not affect England, but English Bills may very well affect Scotland. Government Members have consistently refused to recognise that throughout this debate.

The former Member for Richmond (Yorks), William Hague, acknowledged as much when he said:

“we recognise that the level of spending on health and local government in England is a legitimate matter for all MPs, as there are consequential effects on spending for the rest of the UK”.

The McKay commission pointed out that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 largely applied to England but had appreciable effects on commitments to public spending in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, even though health and social care is a devolved matter. It concluded:

“Any reforms undertaken to respond to English concerns must therefore be mindful of possible impacts outside England and seek to mitigate such impacts.”

In addition to Barnett consequentials, other, more general financial consequences can arise. For instance, if earned income was redefined, Scottish income tax revenues would be affected. There is a perennial question that I have not heard any Conservative Member answer: we still cannot get a logical definition of what qualifies as an England-only or an England and Wales-only Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was told in response to a letter to the Leader of the House that the Scotland Bill would qualify as an England-only Bill. That demonstrates how ludicrous this whole debate is. How insulting to Scotland is that?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The hon. Lady will recognise that the Government realised there was a problem with that and it has been corrected. I believe that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has a letter to that effect.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady, but that merely demonstrates the indecent haste with which this whole enterprise has been cobbled together.