Environment and Climate Change
James Heappey Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Like many colleagues from across the House, I agree that we are in a climate emergency and should act accordingly. Somerset County Council and other councils around the south-west have already taken the lead on this, and I am glad that other councils, and hopefully the Government, will follow suit.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) gave a very good speech earlier on the responsibility that we in this place have for leadership, honesty and persuasion over the challenge that lies in front of us. It reminded me of a TV series that I am sure many colleagues will have gorged on: “The West Wing”. There is an episode around 10-word answers, and “This is a climate emergency and we must act now” is a 10-word answer. That is the easy bit; we can all say that and mean it and genuinely want to do something about it. However, the bit that comes next is hugely challenging, and that is where we have to start having conversations with our constituents.
The shadow Business Secretary has some great ideas on this, but at the weekend I saw her on television talking about subsidies for fossil fuels. Referring to the EU’s accounting of it, she meant things such as the 5% VAT on heating fuel and the forgone taxation from the refusal to implement the motoring fuel escalator. To say those are subsidies for fossil fuels is fine—we have to tackle those issues; we use fossil fuels too much for heating and transport—but let us not pretend by using the line “subsidies for fossil fuels” that there are not enormous challenges about which we must be honest with our constituents.
From that comes the whole issue of boiler and car scrappage, and how we do that in a socially just way, because invariably those least able to replace their boilers or cars are the ones driving the most polluting cars or using the least efficient boilers. It is a hugely difficult challenge, about which we must have an honest discussion, as we must on the requirement to bring about carbon capture and storage or to look at hydrogen as a means for allowing our heavy industry to continue. We have to be honest about the costs of doing that, but also about the advantages.
Time prohibits me from going through a whole list of things that I think we—as a Parliament, across the House—can lead on. We can sell a vision of a life that is better, more comfortable and more sustainable, but we will not do it if we jump on easy-to-grab soundbites such as “subsidies on fossil fuels”, and then pretend that to eradicate those subsidies would not bring a profound challenge to our cost of living. The challenge is enormous. We must stand together.
Agriculture Bill
James Heappey Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sue Hayman
The hon. Lady makes a good point. It is critical that we begin looking across all industries to see how we can shift to net zero.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady explain how much, according to her calculations, it will cost to achieve net zero in agriculture? Will that be met from general taxation through the Government or through increased food prices at the supermarket?
Sue Hayman
I do not believe that I made that commitment, so it is not something on which I have done calculations at this time.
Continuing to deplete soils, lose pollinators and pollute waters does nothing for farm productivity; that is why we need a Bill that delivers food security as well as environmental outcomes. It is self-defeating and academic to separate those objectives, as the Secretary of State is attempting to do. This is the first time in more than 40 years that a Secretary of State has been directly responsible for the nation’s food security, yet food security has drifted off the Government’s agenda, and they are not offering any clear vision for the future of our nation’s food supply. The Bill is worryingly silent when it comes to food poverty. It says nothing about the balance between the production of healthy and sustainable British food and reliance on imports, the jobs and health and safety of agricultural workers, and preventing trade deals involving lower standards, undercutting British producers.
It is 71 years since the Agriculture Act 1947 was passed by the great post-war Attlee Government. Attlee judged that its author Tom Williams
“effected nothing less than a revolution in British agriculture”
and that
“his place in history is assured as the greatest British Minister of Agriculture of all time”.
I remind the House that the purpose of the Act was
“promoting and maintaining...a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation’s food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it at minimum prices consistently with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry.”
Article 39 of the treaty of Rome set out the aims of the common agricultural policy, including ensuring
“a fair standard of living for the agricultural community…the availability of supplies”,
and that
“supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.”
It is a matter of strategic national interest and social justice that we should ensure that our country is better able to feed itself with healthy, nutritional food while protecting itself against volatility. That is why it is important for sustainable food production to be a central part of the Bill.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
When the last Agriculture Bill went through this place in 1947, we were genuinely concerned about our ability to feed ourselves. In the year that potatoes hit the ration list, food security was the core component of the legislation. Times have now changed and so have our priorities. I welcome the fact that the environment is now such an important part of this Agriculture Bill and that the public so overwhelmingly support that principle. However, food security must continue to be a factor.
Last year, the UK produced only 60% of what it needs to feed itself, compared with 74% 30 years ago. In 1947 there were 13,000 farms in Somerset. Today, just a fraction remain, but agriculture continues to be a hugely important part of Somerset’s economy. Seventy-one years on, Brexit gives us the opportunity to reinvigorate our relationship with the UK’s farmers, and to restate the importance of the food security that they provide and their role in caring for our natural environment.
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to articulate his vision for a green Brexit in the Bill. There is much to applaud in the way in which environmental concerns have been brought to the fore in the drafting of the Bill, and the Secretary of State and his team at DEFRA have rightly won plaudits from the green lobby for their evangelism on the environment. We have to be careful, however, that we do not superimpose a London-based, non-governmental organisation definition of environmentalism on to the country beyond. I am sure that that is not the Secretary of State’s intent, but there is a danger that we cast farmers and farming as detrimental to the environment when actually so much of the good that happens in our countryside is the work of our farmers.
It should not need to be said, but farming is a good thing—so much of the rural idyll that people picture in their minds is the product of farming—and we should not be sniffy about intensive farming, provided that the right animal welfare and environmental standards are maintained. When farmers seek to deliver quality products at low prices through economies of scale, it is surely a good thing. Mega-farms might exist elsewhere in the UK, but farms labelled as “intensive” in Somerset probably consist of a few hundred cows being milked by two or three robots. We must not talk down those important and innovative rural businesses.
Last week, when I met farmers across my constituency to discuss the Bill, they were passionate about the landscape in their care and talked enthusiastically about the amount of wildlife on their land. Some of them farm sites of special scientific interest, where the habitats are particularly sensitive, and they do so with real love for the land in their care. It was clear, however, that how they defined what was of environmental value differed from farm to farm. For some farms in my constituency, an environmental good might be flood alleviation; for others, it might be planting woodland; and for others, it might even be rewilding. Those are undoubtedly good environmental things to do, but they would mostly happen instead of farming rather than alongside it. We must make it absolutely clear that for all the good environmental intentions, we can never judge an agriculture Bill to be successful if it reduces food production.
At the end of the day, it comes down to how we define the public good. I would argue strongly that while good stewardship and a focus on the environmental aspect is clearly a public good, so too is our sovereign capacity to feed ourselves. The key part of the Bill is the connection between subsidy and environmental good practice. While subsidy per acre is a pretty universal measure, if we are to subsidise environmental good, it will be much harder to say what is worthy of subsidy in different parts of the country. Some farms are more productive than others, so there is leeway to do things in a more environmentally focused way. Many farms in my constituency are on poorer-quality land, and margins are very tight indeed. This summer’s weather affected grass growth badly, so feed costs will be higher this winter. Our subsidy regime, while prioritising the environmental aspect, must have the flexibility and agricultural nous to respond to such pressures.
Decarbonisation grabs the headlines, but methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so any farming that includes livestock contributes to climate change. We must look carefully at how we help the farming industry with research and development costs to develop livestock farming methods that produce less methane. There is a drive towards veganism, but that change in consumer habits will put my constituents out of business. Surely there is a way of supporting agriculture and our environment without casting them as being at odds with each other.
Marine Environment
James Heappey Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on securing today’s debate.
The Government have a good record on dealing with pollution in our seas, and I congratulate not only the Minister, but the Secretary of State on all the fantastic things that they have spoken about over the last few months that will make a big difference. The ban on microbeads is very welcome indeed, as is the consultation on single-use plastics, the ongoing work to clean up our coastal waters, and the responsibility that the Government have acknowledged to take a lead in making sure that we have responsible fishing at home and abroad. I want to speak about those last three matters briefly today.
Last month, I joined a beach clean at Burnham-on-Sea, and was struck by the incredible amount of plastic that had been washed up. There were bottles, earbuds, drinking straws, packaging—all sorts. The Government should be as concerned as I was about the amount of plastic that was there, but they should also take great heart and credit for the significant reduction in plastic bags that are being washed up on our beaches compared with three years ago, which is the direct result of the charge that they have made for bags in supermarkets. It just goes to show that if we can attach a value to plastics, we can change people’s behaviour.
We can encourage consumers and businesses to use different materials. Wetherspoons should be congratulated on using paper straws rather than plastic ones. Increasingly, the plastic buds that people use to clean their ears are being switched from blue plastic sticks to paper sticks. Things like that make a difference, and where we cannot lean on manufacturers to change packaging, we should look at a deposit return scheme, so that we attach a value to the plastics and drive down their usage.
The Government, the Prince of Wales, Sky News—with its excellent ocean rescue campaign—and, of course, the brilliant “Blue Planet II”, which we are all watching on Sunday evenings at the moment, have shown real leadership. We should all agree that single-use plastics are absolutely avoidable. The UK is already taking a lead in how they can be avoided, and we should be behind the Government in continuing that effort.
On fishing, Brexit is clearly a great challenge. We should beware the siren calls that may come from some in the fishing industry to eschew EU regulation and let the UK fishing industry be great again. I think that that is a false narrative. If we adopt the best practice from EU regulation into UK waters, we can support a thriving UK fishing industry, while making sure that marine life in and around the United Kingdom can also thrive.
We should also, of course, expect the very best practices from fisheries overseas. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) in supporting the On the Hook campaign. When they buy fish in our shops, consumers want to know that the blue tick on the tins or on the packaging for their fish is something they can rely on. The Marine Stewardship Council is responsible for the blue ticks and it has been deeply concerning to see evidence from On the Hook that that blue tick is being applied to fish products that were absolutely not caught in a sustainable way, particularly from the Parties to the Nauru Agreement fishery in the Pacific. One might question why on earth we should worry about that, but a lot of that fish ends up on shelves in UK supermarkets, and UK consumers have every right to expect that what they buy, if it has a blue tick on it from the Marine Stewardship Council, is legitimate and that that blue tick is justified so that they can purchase with confidence.
Finally, I want to raise with the Minister, as I have done with her predecessors, the bathing water quality of Burnham-on-Sea, which, it has been announced today, has fallen short of the standards we should expect. There is a good news story underneath that. There have been significant improvements in bathing water quality at Burnham-on-Sea over the past few years. Wessex Water is to be congratulated on the huge amount it has spent in improving the sewerage systems throughout the catchment, and we are seeing that reap dividends as the results have improved this year.
There is also improved behaviour from local residents, businesses and the council. There are better bins, so there are fewer seagulls, and we see good practice with dog walkers on the beach. All of that sort of thing is happening, which is great news. However, we still do not understand which farms within the enormous catchment are having the most impact on bathing water quality. I have been pushing Natural England and the Environment Agency to understand that for some time now. Some ministerial support might be useful in ensuring we do a full and accurate audit so that we understand exactly which farms contribute to the bathing water quality challenge and so that we can target the grants for improving farmyards and waste-water run-off in a way that directly affects bathing water in Burnham-on-Sea, rather than simply rewarding the farms and farmers who are best at applying for grants.
Our oceans are vital to the health of our planet. The levels, the temperature and the life of and in our seas are absolutely vital. The Government are doing some brilliant work. It is quite incredible when George Monbiot starts to write complimentary things about a Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government are to be congratulated on all they are doing. They have my full support. If we could get the bathing water in Burnham-on-Sea improved, I would be very grateful indeed.