Fisheries Bill (First sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

Q The Minister asked about redistribution of quota from our EU friends to UK fishers. Do you feel that there are enough powers in the Bill to give certainty about how redistribution will take place, and is redistribution a nice-to-have aim and objective, or is it something that will actually happen if it is included in the Bill?

Bertie Armstrong: The Bill in its present form enables the UK to work as a coastal state in the way that other coastal states do, so the answer to that is yes. We would be greatly comforted by the insertion into the Bill of a date of assumption of sovereignty. The self-suggesting date is the end of the transition period—the implementation period, in our parlance. In other words, the end of December 2020.

[The Chair]

I am very sorry, but I am finding it hard to hear you, perhaps because I am a bit deaf. Would you mind speaking up a bit?

Bertie Armstrong: I will, forgive me. The date of the end of December 2020 should therefore be inserted into the Bill so there is a commitment to becoming, in practical terms, a coastal state.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Do you get a sense that there is a plan for how quota will be drawn down against our EU friends, rather than our having the ability to have control our waters, and then have the same quota share between UK and EU fishers?

Bertie Armstrong: There is a whole fisheries agreement laid down in the withdrawal agreement, which is yet to happen. That is the point. Your question does not indicate from whom I would seek that answer. There is a whole fisheries agreement to be negotiated. Well, we say negotiated, but you need to ask, “Who owns this place?” After Brexit, we own this place. This is the UK’s natural capital. That places a pretty strong trump in your hand of cards for the negotiation.

At one end of the spectrum of the fisheries agreement is, “None of you get in at all and fish anything,” which is absurd. At the other end of the spectrum is, “We’re going to give up and shut the fleet down. You can have at it and have the lot.” The negotiating ground is in between. We would like to see, in the fullness of time, the UK’s fishing opportunity representing zonal attachment or something close to it. That is what should be the result.

Barrie Deas: The UK will be an independent coastal state under international law. The United Nations convention on the law of the sea carries certain rights and responsibilities, including the responsibility to co-operate on the shared management of shared stocks. That is a starting point. There is a very important link between access rights and the renegotiation of quota shares. You can use the EU-Norway example as the most relevant model for future management. The UK is engaged in bilateral negotiations with the EU. That will be about setting quotas and total allowable catches at safe levels. It will also be about access arrangements for the coming year, and it will be about quota shares. That link between access and quota shares is the key to delivering a change and rebalancing of quotas to the UK, where needed. There will be a certain degree of access for European fleets—how much is to be negotiated—and there is the rebalancing of the quota shares. Those two things should be inextricably linked, and that is where our leverage lies in addressing the quota distortions that are there at the moment.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Okay, but there is nothing in the Bill necessarily that gives certainty about when that drawdown period will take place against it.

Witnesses indicated assent.

[Luke Pollard]

Q On the economic link, having fish caught under UK quota but landed in foreign ports means that the economic link between the UK quota—fish in UK waters—and the benefits to the UK is not always naturally construed. How much fish, especially from quota owned by foreign boats and caught by our EU friends, is landed in UK ports at the moment? How much should be landed, if we are to impress that an economic link should be included in the Bill?

Bertie Armstrong: It is a complicated question. We should look to other coastal states. There is great assistance in looking at other models. Iceland and Norway—to cite the pair of them again—place much stronger economic links on ownership of vessels and ownership of the stewardship of the fishing opportunity, which is less strong in the UK because of EU regulation. Everyone will know that in the late 1970s the UK attempted to apply a 75% ownership limit to foreign investment in fishing vessels and lost in the European courts because that was illegal under European law. It had to be 75% European ownership. There is an opportunity downstream to have another look at ownership.

[Luke Pollard]

Q But that is about ownership rather than about landing, is it not?

Bertie Armstrong: The first thing that happens if you make rules about landing is that you have a boat full of mackerel and you cannot land it until Friday, which is very prejudicial. If we are to make rules about landings which make instinctive perfect sense, to capture the economic activity into the land, we must have a sensible vision of how much volume we will need to cope with and how that will be done seasonally. Making simple rules is likely to produce more problems than it will solve. It would be more helpful to have a vision for the UK fishing industry. In the withdrawal from the EU lies the opportunity effectively to double the economic activity associated with UK fishing, including the whole of the supply chain. As long as we are ready for that, the landings will take place into the UK. We look forward to the day when all UK fishermen will want to land their fish into the UK, because we are a world seafood leader and that is where they will get their best price.

Barrie Deas: The principle is that UK quotas should bring proportionate benefits to the UK. That is the starting point. The question is how you do that. The obligation to land a certain proportion of the fish is there in the current arrangements—the current economic link—but there are other options to meet that question of equivalence. Requiring all fish to be landed in the UK would mean an intervention in the market, because if there are economic benefits to landing particular species abroad where there is higher value, there is obviously an economic purpose to doing it that way, so we have to be careful about that. It is right that the economic link requirements are reviewed in the new circumstances, but I quite like the idea of having the flexibility, as long as there is an equivalence, and it is all linked back to the fundamental principle that UK quotas should bring proportionate benefit to the UK.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Q I have two questions. Do you think the Bill will lead to increased fishing opportunities both for new entrants and for what until now have been called the under-10s, although I think it is important we try to get away from that descriptor? Picking up on the Minister’s comments about equal allocation across all UK fisheries for all UK boats, do you think that principle lies comfortably with the sustainable management of individual fisheries? I say that because there is a concern that it is difficult to do that when you get boats from other parts of the UK coming into waters off the East Anglian coast, and not only off the East Anglian coast. It is a concern that has been raised with me about waters off the north-east. Yesterday I was hearing about problems with managing cuttlefish down off the south-west where this problem had arisen. I would welcome both your views on those two issues.

Barrie Deas: On increased fishing opportunities and how they could be allocated, for a number of reasons, including case law in the English courts, but also the stewardship that comes along with rights of tenure, which have been an important factor in stabilising our fisheries over the last 20 years, our federation takes the view that for existing quota it should remain the same, but for additional quota we think there is a conversation to be had on the most appropriate use of that. There is a range of options.

Perhaps we are being a bit narrow here. You alluded to the division line at under-10, which has, I think, caused distortions in the fleet and unintended consequences —you have a cohort of high-catching under-10s, sometimes called rule beaters or super-under-10s, that have kind of distorted fishing patterns. There is recognition that we need to move beyond that now. In that context, there is an issue about how you define genuine small boats—genuine low-impact vessels—and I accept that. My organisation would be very interested in taking them out of the quota system altogether. That does not mean not taking into account their contribution to mortality. In a sense, it is a reversion to what we had in the early days of under-10 metre management, where sufficient quota was allocated and we did not have to have monthly quotas for that class of vessels. There is a very interesting conversation to be had about the future and new entrants and how the genuine low-impact fleets fit into that.

Equal access has been an important principle and there are dissatisfactions wherever you have a nomadic fleet arriving on the doorstep of a local fishery. That would be true of our boats fishing in bits of Scotland, I suppose, and certainly you hear these kinds of things about Scottish boats fishing off the Northumbrian coast or down in the south-west. Fishermen are competitive. They are competing with each other as well as with foreign fisherman. That is the context in which you have to situate that particular issue.

Bertie Armstrong: Mr Aldous, your question was about new entrants in under-10s. The enabler for a better deal for new entrants in under-10s will be the uplift in opportunity for fishing that comes with Brexit; otherwise, we presumably have fixed the problems already with the fishing opportunity available. The situation is different as you go around the coast. The small-vessel fleet in Scotland has a different character and tends to use creels, or pots, to catch shellfish—that is a great generalisation; there are others—so there is a different set of problems. It is generally inshore and small scale and is therefore best sorted out locally, but I think there will be a better deal for all with the uplift in opportunity.

There is another abiding principle here. If you are going to make alterations to arrangements for fishing, the fish need to be there to be caught. It is one thing to give someone tons of fish; it is quite another if the fish are not there in prime condition with a business plan for getting them landed and into a logistics chain. Much is made of the big mackerel catchers in the pelagic fleet, and much is made of rather lurid statistics about what percentage is held by what number. You cannot catch 250,000 tonnes of mackerel in winter, 100 miles to the west of the British Isles, with hand line under-10s—you simply cannot. But a few hundred tonnes to the hand line under-10s, provided the local arrangements pay attention to making sure there is a whole logistics chain and they are going to get that fish to a place where somebody wants it, is where the opportunity lies.

My final input, on behalf of slightly larger-scale fishing, is: be careful what you mean by low impact. The carbon footprint per kilogram of fish of a pelagic trawler catching mackerel is very much smaller than any other form of fishing, because you catch volume efficiently and quickly. There are many aspects to this.

In answer to the question, yes, there is extra opportunity, but there has to be extra opportunity to distribute. The problems are largely regional and should be sorted out regionally. We need to be careful not to place excessive detail on the face of the Bill. I suggest that a lot of this is best done by secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q Finally, leaving aside shellfish and some of the species that we export for which tariffs are quite low, and looking specifically at your members who predominantly process highly processed cod products, what proportion of their production is re-exported to the EU, and what proportion of those highly processed products is sold in the UK?

Andrew Kuyk: I am not sure I would use the term “highly processed”. Quite a lot of it is things such as bread-crumbs; I do not know whether you regard that as a high degree of processing. It is to do with the presentation. These are consumer-ready, convenience products—fillets with some kind of coating. There is a growing line in ready meals—a meal opportunity: a fish product with vegetables and a sauce, and so on. Most of those imports are for domestic consumption, because we are a deficit market. There is some re-export. I do not have an exact figure, but I would imagine it is something like 10% or 15%—not more than that. The vast majority is to supply our domestic market.

[Luke Pollard]

Q The Bill does not talk very much about processing. If we were to include an economic link for anyone catching fish under a UK quota, where more fish was landed in the UK ports, what would the impact of that be on the UK processing sector?

Andrew Kuyk: It is difficult to say. Again, without going too much into the history, we used to have what I would call an end-to-end processing industry in the UK, where a whole wet fish would go in one end of the factory and a product would come out of the other. Over the years, that has become rationalised and specialised, and a lot of that first-stage processing now happens elsewhere. Some of it happens on board vessels, on factory ships. Some fish—I know this sounds anomalous, but it is sheer market economics—are sent to places such as China, where they are filleted, and come back as frozen blocks. The raw material for quite a lot of our processing industry at the moment is a pre-prepared product—it is not the fish straight from the boat.

That could be a problem on two or three different levels. It is a problem and an opportunity. Clearly, if there was more domestic supply available, the UK processing industry would do its best to cope with that, but that would require investment. I was listening to the earlier session. The front end of the processing factory does exist on a smaller scale in some parts of the country, but for the people who supply the vast volumes—a sort of 80:20 thing—that front end, the lines of people physically filleting the fish and so on, does not exist any more. To reinvent that, you would need the labour, which I know is a tangential issue not to do with the Fisheries Bill, but it is a broader issue for the food industry in relation to Brexit—the supply of labour—and you need the skill. You need both the people and the skill, and you would need some physical investment in capacity, more storage, more chilling and so on.

It is not as if there is under-utilised capacity. It is a function of modern business that capacity matches throughput and the market, so there is not excess processing capacity waiting for new supplies of fish. It would have to be put in place. It would require money, people and skills. To invest the money, you would need a sound business case that could give you a projection of what your price and what your market share would be. The price, critically, would depend on what your broader trading relationship was—tariffs and currency—and what the competition was. It is quite a complex jigsaw, but the short answer is that there is not significant under-utilised capacity that, at the flick of a switch, could suddenly cope with an influx of domestically caught fish.

[Luke Pollard]

Thank you. I think you are underselling the success story.

[The Chair]

Before we go on, Mr Grant looks as if he has a question on this particular point.

[Bill Grant]

Q The processing industry accounts for more than 50% of those employed in the fishing industry as a whole. Is there anything in the Bill that gives you concern that the security of those 14,000-plus jobs could be affected, or is there anything that gives you concern about the supply of fish, which is essential to secure the jobs? Is there anything in the Bill that concerns you in relation to job security and the security of the supply of fish?

Andrew Kuyk: I think not, in the sense that those are not areas that are covered in the Bill. It does not cover trading relationships or the kinds of issues that you are raising. From our point of view, is that a significant omission? Not necessarily, because my understanding of the Bill is that it is a piece of framework legislation, which gives the Government the necessary tools to manage fisheries in the UK and the marine environment, in a changed legal situation where we become a sovereign coastal state. It is the tool box for the management of fisheries. It does not address those issues. Do we have concerns about those issues? Yes, we do, but I am not sure that the Bill is the appropriate place for those concerns to be addressed.

[Luke Pollard]

Q I was just going to say that I think you are underselling the success story of British fish processing. I think the vast majority of our jobs in fishing are in processing. If more fish were landed, there would be a commensurate increase in potential jobs in processing. Earlier, you mentioned statistics about how much fish we export and how much fish we import, because there does seem to be an imbalance there. I do not think it is widely understood that we mainly export the fish we catch and import the fish we eat.

Andrew Kuyk: It is because they are not the same species.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Exactly. What are the complications? What situations would you want referenced in the Bill to ensure that there is easy and free trade in those fish products? I imagine that any tariff could have quite an impact on the level of trade across our boundary. Is there anything that needs to be included in the Bill to give fish processors the confidence that they need to invest in more facilities in UK ports and elsewhere?

Andrew Kuyk: I am not a parliamentary draughtsman, and I am not sure it is relevant to the subject of the Bill. I suppose it would be possible for the Government to include a trade section in the Bill. One of the things that unites the people I represent and your previous witnesses is that we do not think there should be a link between trade, access to waters and quotas. We think those are separate issues. I know, Mr Gray, that you do not want to go too near Brexit and the backstop, but there is a relevance, given that in the backstop you have a carve-out in article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which exempts fish and fishery products from the single customs territory that would otherwise apply in the backstop, so there is the potential for tariffs to be imposed on UK exports.

To recap, the main things we catch are things like herring, mackerel and shellfish, for which there is not great demand on our domestic market—people prefer cod, tuna and salmon—but there is a good market in the EU. In that succession of hypotheses if there is not an agreement and we come into the backstop, UK exports would potentially face significant tariff barriers. There may be opportunities elsewhere, but that would have a significant impact on the trade. I genuinely do not know how you would guard against that in the Fisheries Bill.

In terms of our access to the raw materials we need, we have the ATQ system and the benefit of some EU trade agreements with third countries. Again, I do not know how you make a reserve carve-out and preserve that position in the Fisheries Bill. That would be our aspiration. As processors, we want free and frictionless trade, like any other part of the food industry. That is our headline message: free and frictionless trade. The deal on the table—the political declaration—holds out the prospect of free trade. That would be very good.

The friction will depend on the degree of regulatory alignment. Fish fall into the category of products of animal origin, to which certain special rules apply in the EU. As a third country, things would have to go through a border inspection post, and so on. Clearly, for a highly perishable fresh product, any increase in the degree of inspection control is potentially detrimental if it leads to delay. Even if the product is not spoiled, its commercial quality and its value will have reduced.

[The Chair]

We have 10 minutes for five questions. Let us be quick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Q Do we import any fish from outside EU markets?

Andrew Kuyk: Yes, and we have some stuff that is landed directly in the UK. There are well tried and trusted systems, and any necessary adaptations have already taken place. We have the facilities to cope with fish that are landed directly in the UK—from Norway, Iceland or anywhere else—because that is established trade. It is well run-in, it functions smoothly and it is not a problem. My general answer is that at the moment we do not have friction either through the EU route or directly. There are controls and rules that have to be complied with, but there are tried and trusted systems. The relevant capacities for handling at ports and for storage are all there for existing trade.

[Luke Pollard]

Q I have a quick question. On supply chain fairness, there have been concerns in the media about the involvement of modern slavery in the employment practices of foreign food processors. Can you give a sense of what the UK processing sector is doing to ensure that no fish in our system are processed or caught using methods of modern slavery?

Andrew Kuyk: We certainly recognise that that is an issue in global supply chains. I think that both our members and our retail customers do their utmost through due diligence and audits to try to ensure that our own supply chains do not suffer from that. This is an issue in the textile industry and others; it is not restricted to the food industry. Part of our industry’s overall corporate responsibility is not just sustainability of the resource, but ethics and employment practices. That is part of the sustainability agenda of all major processors and retailers, and we do everything that we can to ensure that poor practice is eliminated.

[Luke Pollard]

Q So an objective in the Bill to ensure supply chain fairness—to ensure that there are no practices like modern slavery going on—would not be an obstacle to your sector operating?

Andrew Kuyk: No. As you said, there is already modern slavery legislation. Companies over a certain size must have policies in place. We would have no difficulty with that. Obviously there are some practical issues in supply chains in terms of tracing things back and assigning responsibility. On the aquaculture side—without going off at too much of a tangent—the fish feed might come from less well-regulated fisheries, but those are known problems in the industry and people are doing all in their power to tackle them, including using the commercial power not to source from areas where there is dubious practice. There is also the EU regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which I know we will wish to continue. There is no social chapter in IUU, but that is part of the approach to ensure that things are sustainably and ethically sourced.

[The Chair]

Mr Kuyk, I thank you very much for your most learned, well informed and well expressed evidence, which will be extremely useful to the Committee.

Examination of Witnesses

Paul Trebilcock and Martin Salter gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q Do you not think that that is there in the very first clause of the Bill, in subsection (3), which states that the “precautionary objective” is to ensure that “living marine biological resources” are exploited in such a way that they are harvested

“above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.”

There is a legal commitment there.

Martin Salter: There is, but there is a section in the Bill about binding duties. Frankly, Minister, if I were in your shoes, I would want a binding duty. I would want to make it crystal clear that we are going to end the discredited system that has operated under the common fisheries policy and replace it with a legally backed duty to fish at sustainable levels, just as we have legally backed targets for climate change and emissions.

I am afraid I do not agree with Paul and my colleagues in the commercial catching sector about having MSY as an aspiration. Minister, you have piloted bass conservation measures more than anybody else, but usually in the face of opposition from the commercial catching sector. We have seen those conservation measures start to lead to the rebuilding of bass stocks in the UK, which is really to be commended. We need to be bold, we need to be outliers, we need to learn from the best in the world, and we need it clearly and simply on the face of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Paul, at the moment, not all UK fisheries are classed as sufficiently sustainable under the UK Government’s procurement policies for the Government to buy fish from them. What needs to happen for all UK fisheries to be classed as sustainable, so the UK Government’s procurement policies enable their fish to be bought and so we can be proud that all our fisheries are sustainable?

Paul Trebilcock: I think we are well down the track on that one. Increasing numbers of UK fisheries have either achieved accreditation and are now Marine Stewardship Council-accredited, or are going through the process. Growing numbers by volume and across Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are achieving that. We are definitely moving in that direction, and the UK fishing industry is currently on a trajectory toward having all its fisheries on a sustainable footing. Contrary to Martin’s view, I think the people who will deliver a sustainable fishery and fishing industry are the fishermen themselves, those who are actively at sea. Currently, there are elements of the common fisheries policy, whether it be relative stability shares, access arrangements or some of the technical measures, that hamper the travel toward that sustainability.

The UK operating as a genuine independent coastal state, with a practical and balanced fisheries policy that takes into account all three pillars of sustainability—not just the environmental but the social and economic pillars—will in a very short space of time take the UK further down that track and ultimately toward our shared aspiration of all UK fisheries operating in a sustainable way that will allow the UK Government and anybody else to buy with a clear conscience.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Martin, I agree that this Bill seems to undervalue the contribution of recreational angling and fishing to the UK economy, especially our coastal communities. You mentioned in your earlier remarks that recreational angling was a key stakeholder in other jurisdictions around the world, with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all recognising recreational angling as a key stakeholder. Do you think it should be included as part of this Bill that recreational angling is a key stakeholder and should be regarded as such as the new fisheries policy is introduced?

Martin Salter: Yes, thank you for that. We are promoting an amendment that states:

“Promoting the sustainable development of public access to recreational fishing opportunities as both part of the catching sector and the leisure and tourism industries, taking into account socio-economic factors.”

What is interesting, if we look across the pond at America, is that they have fishery management policies on some stocks. It is worth bearing in mind that those fish stocks that are of interest to the recreational sector do not clash desperately with the fish stocks that my colleagues from the catching sector wish to exploit. We are not interested in monkfish. We are not interested in hake. We are not interested in crabs. We are not interested in lobsters. We are actually only interested in something like 20% of fish landed into UK ports, so there is plenty of opportunity to look at sensible resource-sharing.

In America, the striped bass fishery, which was driven to extinction by commercial overfishing, has recovered as a result of tough conservation measures. They now have in place a resource-sharing operation where X percentage of the stock each year is reserved for the recreational sector, which generates huge value for the US economy. I can read the figures into the record if you like. We have the potential to do that over here. We can look at certain fish stocks and say, “Do you know what? We could deliver better for UK plc by managing that stock recreationally, or at least sharing a proportion of that stock.”

[Luke Pollard]

Q On that point, we have had representations about Cornish bluefin tuna effectively being allocated as a catch-and-release stock in future. That seems to be an area where there might be a tension between recreational fishing and those commercial fishers who might want to catch and use that in the food supply chain. How can the tension be resolved for a stock such as that, and is there anything that needs to go in the Bill about how stocks could be better managed where there is a potential clash?

Martin Salter: To be honest, Mr Pollard, I do not think that is a matter for the Bill. We are looking forward to meeting the Minister on bluefin tuna, although we accept that he is pretty busy at the moment with two Bills going through Parliament. It is interesting that the bluefin tuna is still on the endangered list, but the International Union for Conservation of Nature list goes back to 2011, which predates the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas stock recovery programme. That stock recovery programme has seen the global quota increased to something like 38,000 tonnes. The EU gets 20,000 tonnes of that. Under ICCAT rules, the EU has to allocate a small proportion to a non-commercial interest—in other words, a recreational catch-and-release interest. The recreational sector only ever needs a very small part of that quota because of the mortality rate for bluefin tuna. They are big, tough animals, and the Canadian model shows that their mortality rate is around 3.6%.

You can therefore have a very small quota in the UK and develop a thriving recreational tuna fishery. Given that the stock is slowly recovering, I should imagine that ICCAT would consider it far too early to start thinking about cranking up commercial exploitation in an area of the globe where it has not traditionally happened. A first run at tuna, if you like, really needs to be a tightly licensed, properly controlled recreational fishery that sits alongside the tagging programmes that the World Wildlife Fund is currently doing in Sweden and has also done in the Mediterranean.

We need to know a lot more about these wonderful creatures before we open the door to commercial exploitation, and the first stage would be to set up a recreational bluefin tuna fishery. That would generate an awful lot of money for the south-west and for Ireland, and it would also mean—this is really important—that there would be anglers out there looking after this resource. Frankly, if stakeholders are not engaged in the fishery, bad people will do bad things to fish, as can be seen in the amount of illegal and black fish landings that take place every year in this country.

[Peter Aldous]

Q I have a couple of questions. Mr Salter, the highlight of the Second Reading debate was the vision of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for what recreational fishing might do for local economies. Does recreational fishing need to be mentioned in the Bill for you to actually achieve that objective?

Mr Trebilcock, the Bill suggests an enhanced role for producer organisations. Are you fit for purpose—not your specific PO but generally—to fulfil such a role? At the beginning of last month the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion to the UK Government, which admittedly was about the management of POs but in which there was a strong suggestion that you are not doing what you should be.

Paul Trebilcock: You are absolutely right. The Commission is certainly having a look and gave a reasoned opinion about POs functioning in the UK, although that focused primarily on the compliance checks and the audit process by the Marine Management Organisation rather than the functioning of particular POs.

The short answer to your question is that, yes, I think POs are fit for purpose. They are primarily fishermen’s organisations, entirely funded by fishermen and run by and for fishermen to manage quota, market and represent. They have an extremely valuable role. Is there room to improve as we enter a new regime? Absolutely. Clarification of a standard that all POs across the country must deliver to, clarity of function and a greater understanding from people outside POs of what they actually do would all be really useful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Michael Gove]

It is not just Government Back Benchers whom I wish to be kind to; it is also Opposition Front Benchers, because the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is the case that the management of the discard ban in the past, and potentially in the future, is a real issue of contention. My hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been talking to a number of fishing industry representatives to see whether we can make sure that at this December Council we can put in place appropriate mitigation measures. One thing we can be sure of is that as an independent coastal state we can take appropriate conservation measures in a way that does not lead to those who are practising mixed fisheries facing the sorts of problems the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to.

Fisheries Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to sum up what has been a fantastic debate with good contributions on both sides of the House, and I echo the words expressed across the House about those fishermen who risk their lives to catch the fish we put on our tables. In particular, I add my thanks to the rescue services, the coastguard and the RNLI, who are true heroes indeed.

We do not oppose the Bill. We know that the UK needs a fishing system outside the common fisheries policy after we leave the EU—we do not dispute that—but it is clear that the Government still have some way to go before the Bill satisfies both sides of the House. The Labour party intends to work with the Government to ensure we have a good Bill that is fit for purpose. Fisheries Bills do not often trouble the House of Commons so we need to make it a good one.

There are some good things in the Bill, but there are far too many missing pieces. It smacks of a measure hurriedly prepared and pushed out too quickly by a Government who were aware of the approaching deadline of Brexit. It needed more work before its publication, and it would have benefited from a round of pre-legislative scrutiny, but as Ministers chose not to do that, I think they should not be surprised that there have been so many proposals for amendments today and that there will be more in Committee.

The Bill gives the Government a chance to make real the promises made by the Leave campaign. So far, big promises have not been matched by delivery. Fishing communities, in Plymouth and across the country, do not want grand promises; they need honesty, and clarity from the Government, and they want those to be delivered.

[Mrs Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I am sorry, but there have been enough interventions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) made a superb opening speech, but I want to reiterate the concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House.

[Mrs Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will keep going. I apologise, but the hon. Lady has had enough chances.

The Bill constitutes a missed opportunity—a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create a truly world-class, sustainable fisheries policy. We need to get this right, but as it stands, the Bill fails in a number of critical ways. It fails to provide a fair deal for our small fleet, or attempt to break up large monopolies in the fishing industry. It fails to regenerate coastal communities and provide the renaissance that our coastal towns need. It fails to create a vision for the UK to have the most sustainable fisheries in the world. It fails to ensure frictionless access to the single market; indeed, given the Prime Minister’s bad deal, it poses the risk of tariffs on our fish, and we do not want tax on our fish. It also fails to ensure that there is supply-chain fairness across the board.

As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), while in theory the Bill gives us greater access to our waters, it says nothing meaningful about redistributing quota more fairly across the British fleet. The fixed quota allocation system has been heavily criticised on both sides of the House during the debate, and it is unfair, but it has not been updated since the 1990s. If I had not been updated since the 1990s, I would still have bleached blond hair, wear cargo trousers and believe that wet-look gel is a good idea. Times change, and so must our fishing regulation. As a result of the existing system, ownership of quota has become increasingly consolidated in the hands of a few, and we need to change that. We need to distribute quota so that it goes back into the hands of the many.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said earlier, more than a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families on the Sunday Times rich list. Quotas should be allocated according to transparent and ecological criteria, to the benefit of fishing communities. For example, a greater share should be offered in return for compliance with relevant regulations, participation in data gathering and good science, full monitoring and recording of catches, compliance with discard rules, and the application of high standards of workers’ rights, welfare and, especially, marine safety. Given the loss of two trawlers from Plymouth since my election, and a death in both losses, I am disappointed that the Bill does not contain more about enhanced marine safety as a qualification for additional quota. We need to reward best practice, not ignore that problem.

The UK has always had the ability to allocate quota to reward particular types of fishing practice or to support broader social and economic gains, but has chosen not to do so in a broad, meaningful way. Ministers have reallocated too little quota, although they have reallocated some. Labour wants smaller boats to be given a greater share of quota after Brexit. Small boats are the backbone of our fishing industry, the small and medium-sized enterprises of the sector, and they need our backing. The small-scale fishing fleet generally uses low-impact gear, and creates significantly more jobs per tonne of fish landed than the large-scale sector. In the UK, the under 10-metre small-scale fleet represents more than 70% of English fishing boats and 65% of direct employment in fishing, and it should be supported.

We have heard that recreational fishing would have huge potential with better management, and I agree. There is not enough in the Bill that values that sector—not yet, at least. More recreational fishing and more sustainable fisheries depend on better science to plug the gap in data. That means more baseline stock levels for non-quota species such as cuttlefish. If ours are to be the most sustainable fisheries in the world, we need to have the best science in the world. Indeed, the data deficiency that we currently see in our fisheries is one of the reasons why many of our fisheries cannot market their fish as sustainable. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), we need to ensure that maximum sustainable yield is achieved by 2020, and that that date is put in the Bill.

There have been many good contributions from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned the governance gap and the too frequent reliance on Henry VIII powers in this Bill, and that needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) talked about doubling the size of the co-operative economy, and in fishing we have a proud record of co-operatives; that should be supported. We need to ensure not only that EMFF funds are replaced—with every single penny replaced, not cut—but also that the other funding arrangements, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, are put in place. Local government need to ensure that they have the funds to invest in our fishing as well. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, we must make sure we have a passion about fish, not just a passion about fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said we need to talk more about processing, which has the lion’s share of employment in the fishing sector.

My party does support this Bill, but we believe it needs more work in a considerable number of areas. Serious concerns have been raised on both sides of this House about fairness, funding, sustainability and trade. The fishing industry has been given grand promises by the Environment Secretary, and many others besides, only to have some of them broken time after time. While I believe that the Fisheries Minister is honest in his efforts, I fear that those higher up in his Government are selling him out and that our fishing industries have been sold out, too. That must not be the case with this Bill: no more betrayals; no more grand promises. To the Minister I say be up front and frank with fishers about the difficulties and opportunities, because I have not met a fisherman who is not equally frank, up front and honest in their response.

I genuinely believe that there is scope for this Bill to be improved with cross-party working, and I put the Government on notice that if we cannot achieve those improvements, they should not necessarily count on our support in future parliamentary stages.

Draft Infrastructure Planning (Water Resources) (England) Order 2018

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.

The Opposition largely welcomes the introduction of legislation that recognises that the UK, along with the rest of the world, is experiencing a water crisis. We know that more people are living in areas of water stress, of more population growth and of house building planned in areas of water stress, and we know that climate change is changing predictability and the flows of water into the system. The water industry must adapt, and the Government must adopt a more ambitious policy than is currently in place to meet those challenges.

The Labour party broadly welcomes the proposed amendments to the 2008 Act as we believe they will lead to greater water resilience in the UK, but we need more and better infrastructure to deal with increased demand. However, we must make sure that the ways in which we build infrastructure and supply water are sustainable for the environment and for local communities, and not simply profitable for the water companies involved. We must urge developers to build infrastructure that works with the natural water system, rather than disrupting it in ways that are unsustainable.

The dangers of mismanaging water are grave. I am sure the Minister will have seen the report published by WWF, which states that in England and Wales only one in five rivers are deemed to be in good ecological health, and nearly 25% in England are at risk of unsustainable water abstraction. We must make sure we take into account the risks associated with a higher number of major water infrastructure projects. First, a huge amount of water is already lost through leaks in water resources operations. Can the Minister speak about the concerns that the Government’s priority, concurrent to this order, should be to reduce leakage in water operations and not simply to provide more water resources? What progress is being made? Will the Minister also touch on what action the Government can support the industry in taking to address the leaks in customers’ homes that are outside current company remits?

Secondly, the report by WWF estimates that 9% of rivers flowing into some of the water resources covered by the order are over-licensed. That means that if permits to abstract water from rivers were fully utilised, levels of water would be unable to sustain wildlife. Does the national policy statement on water resources take into account over-licensed and over-abstracted rivers in the planning process for the new national strategic projects, and how would the order impact on that?

Thirdly, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management has expressed concerns that the criteria for defining a nationally significant infrastructure project,

“do not consider any regional or supra-regional water resources issues”.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has let his views on experts be well known, but that view is not shared on this side of the House. Experts should be listened to as the powers in the order are used. Will the Minister’s Department provide support for regional multi-sector resources planning as well as co-ordination to ensure that the nationally significant solutions that are progressed are the right ones?

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The Minister specified that each water company must produce a water resources plan, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not integrate them. Is it not time for a national water resources plan in which water companies have a duty to co-operate with neighbouring companies in planning water resources for the next 25 years or so?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is exactly right. At present, water companies have a responsibility to provide a water resources plan for the area that they cover, which largely covers the water catchment area that those companies are framed around. It seems that there is an opportunity to join up those water resources plans on a regional basis, to ensure that water companies co-operate because it is not only in their best interest, but in the environment’s best interest to join up the water resources next door. I think that is especially important when we are talking about areas of water stress. At heart, the order is about providing more water storage. If the powers in it are to be used, it is important not only that the water resources plan is for one water company, but that the neighbouring water companies all join up. I think there is an opportunity to create a national water resources plan, which is not being taken at the moment. I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend.

Our efforts to increase water resilience must not have unintended consequences on local people and economies. If more projects are commissioned at a national level, we need to ensure that more local engagement is undertaken to balance out the fact that that national decision making has been taken from local communities. The whole Committee will recognise that nationally significant projects are more often than not best decided at a national level, but that should not dilute, devalue or dismiss the views of local people affected by the schemes, especially when nationally significant projects can cross local authority boundaries and cause significant disruption in their construction and operation.

I have heard from Dr Derek Stork, who is leading an action group against Thames Water’s plans to build a “nationally significant” reservoir in the south-east, which he says will significantly impact his community. He shared his concerns about the lack of democratic accountability for nationally significant infrastructure projects and the way in which they are determined, given that projects can be approved many years ahead of time. People who will be most affected by these infrastructure projects must retain the ability to be involved with decisions after a project has been approved, as well as leading up to that approval, and be able to hold those delivering those decisions accountable for their actions and commitments made to local communities. Those nationally significant infrastructure project commitments should not just be about getting through the planning committee, or in this case the Secretary of State—the projects should be held to them.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

On that point, Scotland has plenty of water, but down south all we see is floods. Does my hon. Friend think the community should be involved in positions on these big planning developments, which are important to communities?

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed. Government can sometimes underestimate just how much knowledge and expertise can be held in a local community, especially when there is such building on flood plains and changes in how our water resources are used on a local level. Taking into account the concerns of local people can get a better scheme at the end of it, if for nothing else than for those people that are taking that project forward. Too often, some water resources, flood management and water schemes have been incentivised by spending lots of money and not working out whether there are better ways of achieving the outcome without deploying that amount of capital or carbon in an end-of-pipe solution.

There are some examples where nationally significant infrastructure projects are being done incredibly well.

[Ms Rimmer]

Do the Government plan to integrate water infrastructure planning with local authority development plans?

[Luke Pollard]

That is a very good question and one that I would be grateful if the Minister could pick up on in her remarks, in terms of how these powers will actually be used.

There are some good examples of where community engagement is done incredibly well. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know about Thames Tideway, for example, where consultation with communities was done not only through the planning process—in their case, through a development consent order process—but from the moment the spades go in, with genuine engagement and not just consultation. When nationally significant projects are undertaken, they take many years, and that engagement has to be sustained throughout the entire process.

That needs to be the case for the nationally strategic infrastructure projects that are mentioned in the order, especially as a number of them take projects out of the remit of local decision making and move it to powers held by the Secretary of State at a national level. I say that because I think there is a real fear from some of the stakeholder groups and community groups, which responded to the consultation and have serious concerns about the order, that their concerns could be steamrolled over as part of removing decision making from that local level. I trust that the Minister can reassure Dr Stork and hon. Members that this will not be the case.

Although the proposed statutory instrument is potentially a step in the right direction, resilient infrastructure deals only with the fall-out of climate change, not the root of the problem. We must lower pressure and demand on water resources. That means taking more assertive steps to reduce demand, increase water efficiency, retrofit current housing and business stock, and ensure that new homes and commercial buildings are more water efficient in a meaningful way, and prescribing that in the regulatory regime.

The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument, but we would be grateful if the Minister could address the concerns that I and my hon. Friends have raised.

[The Chair]

In calling the right hon. Member for Wantage, may I inform him that, although he is not a member of the Committee, he is welcome to speak but he will not be able to vote in the unlikely event that there is a vote?

Badger Cull

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing the debate and making such a powerful case.

Last year, almost 20,000 badgers were killed across England as part of the largest destruction of a protected British species in living memory. That policy is cruel and inhumane, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. We need more action and a more ambitious animal welfare agenda to stop this senseless suffering.

Hon. Members will be aware that Labour is the party of animal welfare. We legislated with the landmark Hunting Act 2004 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Animal welfare has been placed highly on our party’s agenda, and that is still true today. We want to ensure that animal cruelty is consigned to the past. If animals suffer, we all suffer.

The Opposition’s position is clear: we are opposed to the culling of badgers to control bovine TB and would immediately end the ineffective and cruel badger cull. A Labour Government would instead focus on an evidence-based approach driven by science, not ideology. Every badger matters, but badgers do not have a voice. They do not have a say in politics unless we give them one. The Government are pursuing a cruel and uncaring policy towards badgers, and worst of all, it does not work.

While Ministers seek the headlines, the real hard work often goes undone. Why are Ministers not strengthening the foxhunting ban or bringing forward a Bill to increase sentences for animal welfare cruelty? We need action, not just words. Tackling bovine TB is important, especially to those in our rural communities, so we need something that actually works, unlike the badger cull. As long as Ministers cling to the ideological slaughter of British badgers, actions that genuinely tackle the spread of bovine TB are being overlooked. The badger cull is spreading, as we have heard. In Devon, the county I come from, we now have 12 culling sites—more than any other county. Thankfully, there is no badger culling yet in Plymouth, the city I represent, but I would not predict that it will not happen in the future.

A little over a month ago, The Observer published secret film taken in Cumbria, which showed a badger that took almost a minute to die after being shot in a cage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North mentioned. In fact, recent reports say that up to 22% of badgers can take more than five minutes to die in the cull, which is needless animal suffering. Over the summer the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), brought to the Government’s attention the horrific way in which badgers were being left to die in the extreme heat. Caged badgers spent hours on end trapped in the sun with no water, suffering from heat stress and eventually dying of dehydration. Despite that coming to light, little action was taken. That cruelty serves no purpose, and is another example of why the Opposition believe the badger cull to be cruel.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North mentioned, there is no scientific basis for the policy. The science does not support a badger cull, the evidence does not support a badger cull, and the Opposition do not support a badger cull. Why are the Government pursuing a policy that does not work? Why do they want to look like they are doing something? They need to look busy because if they U-turned, it would make them look weaker than they already do. We need something that works, not just a policy that is stuck to. We need animal welfare policies that are based on science, not ideology.

The Environment Secretary may be tired of experts, but this is what the experts are telling us about the cull: a study commissioned by the Government into bovine TB transmission from badgers to cattle, which took place from 1996 to 2006, concluded that

“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.”

According to the Badger Trust, an excellent organisation that does superb work, only 5.7% of all bovine TB outbreaks involve possible transmission from badgers to cattle. That means that 94% of all bovine TB outbreaks must come from other sources. The Zoological Society of London says that most herds acquire the disease from other cattle. Ministers need to consider ensuring high levels of biosecurity, tracking movements between herds, and looking at the movement of other animals, such as foxhounds, across agricultural land.

The Minister must not sit on the report that we know his Department has received. When did the Department receive the Godfray review on the Government’s bovine TB strategy? When will it be published? Will he commit to publishing it in its original form? Can he confirm whether he has asked for any edits to the report’s recommendations or alterations to its findings? I would be grateful if he could answer those questions and address the concerns expressed by farmers, especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), that the Department is telling them that their herds are TB-free when they know they are not. That is a serious issue that undermines the essential confidence between farmers and the Department.

Bovine TB is a cattle problem that needs a cattle-focused solution. A start would be to improve the current skin tests, which expose an infection in the herd but not the individual cow, which makes it very difficult to narrow down.

The badger cull is a phenomenal waste of money that could be better spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North mentioned. The Badger Trust estimates that when everything has been added up, killing a badger costs about £1,000 per animal. The trust considers that more than £100 million could be spent on killing badgers by 2020. Just think how much better that money could be spent in rural communities. That £100 million could go an enormous way in dealing with rural poverty and the actual concerns of rural communities. Does the Minister not agree that the best way to save money in the fight against bovine TB would be to stop spending Government resources on an ideological policy that has no scientific evidence of reducing bovine TB?

Research shows that vaccinating badgers is not only a better and more humane way to eradicate TB, but is much cheaper. I recently had the opportunity to meet Dr Brian May with my hon. Friends the Members for Workington and for Stroud. I was a little star-struck. As well as being the legendary guitarist from Queen, he has been pioneering badger vaccinations on his farm and has demonstrated their effectiveness and suitability as an alternative to the cruel badger cull. The Badger Trust estimates that vaccinating badgers costs less than £200 an animal, as compared with £1,000 for killing it—what a saving.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

When the hon. Gentleman mentions a cost of £200 a badger, is that a lifetime sum or an annual sum? Vaccinations are an annual requirement, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event.

[Luke Pollard]

That is a good point, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised it. When compared with the cost of killing a badger, vaccinating a badger is cheaper.

[Simon Hart]

If it is £200 for a vaccination and that has to be done annually, it soon gets to £1,000. We should also bear in mind that the vaccination will be completely pointless if the badger already has TB, as it is not a cure, and therefore the money is being wasted whatever the cost.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pursuing me on that point, which he has rightly spotted. However, I point him to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North raised about the cost-benefit analysis of culling versus vaccination. Clearly decent testing needs to be part of the mix. It is about the combination.

[Chris Williamson]

I am interested in the point that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) made about vaccination. I am not an expert, but my understanding is that when someone is vaccinated, they are vaccinated once and that protects them. I do not know whether badger physiology is different in some way, but as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has pointed out, it would be useful to get that cost-benefit analysis. If the Government would come clean, we would all be in the picture as to the reality of the situation.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree with his points.

I will conclude, as the Minister has an awful lot to respond to and I would like him to get to his feet in a moment. As my hon. Friend said, there is no logical reason for the badger cull to continue, or even exist, other than an ideological one: to make the Government look busy when they are failing farmers and rural communities on bovine TB. There are less cruel ways to eradicate bovine TB than killing badgers on a massive scale. Whether it is more accurate and frequent testing of cattle, badger and cattle vaccinations or more rigid control on cattle movements, the solution should be focused on cattle, not innocent badgers. DEFRA’s priority should be to look at the other ways in which bovine TB is transmitted, rather than scapegoating badgers and perpetuating unnecessary animal cruelty. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the points about the Godfray review in particular. An awful lot of people are waiting for the evidence base. DEFRA sitting on the report for as long as it has creates the impression that there is something in it that it wishes to hide.

Cattle Compensation (England) (Amendment) Order 2018

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Cattle Compensation (England) (Amendment) Order 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 754).

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I think that the Committee will have an interesting discussion. This is round three of a four-round contest this week—we have the Agriculture Bill again tomorrow—but this is an important issue. Obviously, the Opposition have some issues with the order.

The background to the order is fairly well known. We no doubt disagree about the causes and consequences of bovine tuberculosis, but we are not here to discuss that. We are here to discuss the compensation scheme, which is very important to my local farmers and to those of a number of other hon. Members here.

The operation of the slaughter policy derives from European Council directive 1964/432/EEC, which demands that we slaughter TB-affected animals. The reason why we have prayed against the order is, as much as anything, to get clarity from the Minister about why we are reducing compensation at this difficult time and what the impact is. As I said, we may disagree about the causes and consequences of bovine TB. We will not disagree that this is a dreadful disease that has a huge impact on our farmers, so any reduction in compensation needs to be looked at very carefully.

In 2015-16, 29,000 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered under the scheme. That cost the state about £30 million, so it is a considerable financial imposition on the state, in addition to the terribly bad effect on farmers. This proposal provides for a 50% reduction in compensation where an owner brings an animal into a TB-affected herd and that animal then tests TB-positive while the TB incident is ongoing. Cattle keepers accredited under a scheme based on the standards laid down by Cattle Health Certification Standards will continue to receive 100% compensation for all compulsorily slaughtered cattle, provided that the herd is accredited at the time of the breakdown. My first question to the Minister is therefore a general one: exactly how will that work? Obviously, some will be accredited, but others may have been brought in. We know that cattle passports and so on are not always as accurate as one would want. If a TB-affected cattle carcase has to be condemned because of being so unclean that there is a real risk of bacterial contamination, it, too, qualifies only for a compensatory payment of 50%.

Under the order, owners of TB-affected cattle who choose a slaughterhouse to kill the cattle could face at least a 50% reduction. For some, that is better, because they may have not got any compensation before. Again, I ask the Minister to be clear: who will receive the compensation and at what level? This measure is of course part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs TB eradication strategy.

Let me move on to the comments from others; I also have some questions. The proposal was not well received in the consultation: 76%—a fairly high number—disagreed with the compensation reduction, and although 47% supported reduced compensation for cattle that cannot be processed by a slaughterhouse because they are unclean, I suspect those people were clear that they stood to gain if they did things properly. The proposals have a negative impact on the cattle industry of about £0.7 million—many of these figures are in the accompanying explanatory memorandum. What impact is that likely to have on those people who are already struggling because of bovine TB?

I have a series of questions that I will go through slowly. Some of them are from the National Farmers Union, which has been quite trenchant in its criticism of aspects of the proposals. To look first at what I am concerned about: has DEFRA proved that the reduction is necessary? It is a large sum of money but, in the great scheme of what we pay out in compensation, it is a relatively small sum.

Has DEFRA considered and discussed the legal implications of the reduced compensation with the Animal and Plant Health Agency? There is some dispute over whether it is right and proper and whether it would lead to a legal challenge. If a bought-in animal becomes a reactor after entering a new herd—the timescale is as yet unknown, though the Minister might be able to say—what criteria will be used to state with absolute certainty that the animal contracted the disease from other cattle within the destination herd? At what point will DEFRA decide that an animal is no longer a migrant to the herd? That is quite a complicated issue—these are complicated matters—and that is where the Government might be subject to legal challenge.

How do the reduced levels of compensation provided for by the order compare with those available to cattle keepers in other EU states, particularly Ireland, which has its own problems with bovine TB? What is DEFRA’s assessment of the impact of this reduction on dairy farms that are forced to buy in herd replacement to meet contractual obligations? That is one of the biggest issues; it is not just a question of the loss of the existing cattle. They have to be bought in, and only from TB-affected areas. What impact would this loss of money have on that process?

What is DEFRA’s assessment of the risk to the quality and welfare of cattle that would result from the reduction in compensation, if it leads farmers to seek to buy replacement stock from the open market, or via live exports? Again, I know about the restrictions on from where to restock, but people who are suffering might look to other means to restock. That would not be any good, with the way TB is spread within the cattle stock as well as maybe from other vectors.

What is DEFRA’s assessment of the impact of this reduction in particular on tenant farmers who have no option but to restock before a breakdown has been resolved, or the impact on the stock value and the ability to assess capital for investment? As the Minister will know, that is the problem for tenant farmers who do not have spare capital: they have to borrow if they face a reduction in compensation. It already takes a considerable time to receive that money. In this case, they would not receive it, and there could be further delays.

Will cattle keepers have the option to pay the slaughterhouse to clip retrospectively where an animal is found not to meet the clean livestock requirements to protect the compensation value to the farmer and receipt value to DEFRA?

I have a couple more questions and observations from the National Farmers Union, and then I will finish. How will the decision to reduce compensation be taken in circumstances in which it cannot be determined whether cattle were unclean when they left a farm? That is the reality of abattoirs; one is always reliant on vets getting it right. The Minister will know about the number of clear cattle that go through, as well the number of cattle of uncertain status that are subsequently found to have TB.

What assessment has DEFRA made of the likelihood and cost of legal challenges? On what basis will DEFRA be able to deal with that without penalising a farmer for a third party’s actions?

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes will unfairly penalise farmers who may be in proximity to high-risk trading activity, rather than having bovine TB in their own herds because of something that they are in control of? They may receive lower compensation simply because of the proximity and activity of neighbouring farms.

[Dr Drew]

That is a very real point, because we still do not know enough about the transmission mechanism of bovine TB. Farmers may be innocent and the disease may have been brought in. We know from such experiences as that in Cumbria that transmission is associated with buying in stock. That certainly occurred after the foot and mouth episode, where the transmission of bovine TB was almost certainly the result of it being in the stock that was brought into Cumbria. That has happened on a number of occasions.

What consideration was given to other approaches to highlight the importance of clean cattle? What guidance has been given to farmers to try to ensure that we have clean cattle and wildlife clear of this dreadful disease, as we all want?

In the NFU’s consultation response—I will not labour the point, because many of the NFU’s concerns replicate points I have made—it was concerned about how the process will operate with the veterinary risk assessment that will be completed by the APHA. If DEFRA does not have sufficient confidence in the process and relationships with the state veterinary service are not always as good as they might be out on the farm, how can we say definitively that the farmer will not be the main loser? Farmers are losing money, but they are also, dare I say it, losing confidence in the process. DEFRA continually emphases its commitment to industry sustainability, and yet the order could place businesses under severe financial constraint. It would be interesting to know what the Minister intends to do to build confidence in the fairness of the process.

I have two more points from the NFU. It said that DEFRA should allow cattle keepers the option to pay the slaughterhouse in advance to clear the process. I made that point, but the NFU is clear that there needs to be a direct mechanism with slaughterhouses, rather than the current retrospective process. Finally, the NFU said that there is a need to consider that most cattle that go for slaughter because of TB are not at the stage of production or conditioning that is normal for finished animals. They may not have spent any time on dry pasture or bedding to help to clean them. The order will further penalise a cattle keeper who is already losing the production potential of an animal that is taken early.

To conclude, this debate is about technicalities, but it is also about farmers’ feeling that the process with an animal that is taken is somewhat unfair. Having dealt with the Minister, I know he is fair, but the process—in my case, the animal was a pet—is quite brutal. There is a view among farmers that they are always the ones who have to make sacrifices. They are making sacrifices with the cull, and the order creates another slippery slope by reducing yet again the compensation that they have received under successive Governments. Farmers are under huge pressure. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay a lot of those fears and keep the discourse going with the farmers’ organisations, which are not happy.

We need to deal with this dreadful disease, not make it worse. The bottom line is whether people will be tempted to take the law into their own hands if we withdraw compensation. I have always felt that one of the problems is that people under financial burdens are too often tempted to deal with those difficulties in other ways. I am not accusing farmers of any illegality, but these are desperate people who face a desperate disease and have to make very difficult decisions. If they are not compensated for the animals that they have lost, that can only add to their desperation.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As I said, at the moment the official veterinarians apply a clear, objective set of criteria. I am more than willing to share the full detail of those criteria with my hon. Friend, but they are applied very objectively by official veterinarians who work for the Food Standards Agency and have a great deal of experience of this work. As I said, we are talking about just 20 animals a year—a very small number.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire raised a really interesting point about what happens in the event of a dispute about whether an animal is unclean. It does not look like the draft order provides for an appeal process. If there is concern that this measure will be used to reduce compensation for farmers, it seems logical that there should be an appeal process. Will the Minister deal with that?

[George Eustice]

The approach will be exactly as it is now. The official veterinarian makes the decision about whether to condemn an animal for being too unclean to process. We have just passed legislation to have CCTV in slaughterhouses, and the official veterinarian collects photographic evidence to demonstrate that an animal was unclean. The OVs have processes to manage this. Ultimately, the FSA is independent and the OVs on the ground will make the decision, as they do on many other such issues.

The shadow Minister asked why we are making these changes. My approach to changes to compensation is clear: I have always rejected such changes simply for the purpose of saving money. In my view, we should change compensation arrangements if that will change behaviour. He also asked about the legal implications. I point out that we are doing exactly what the Labour Administration in Wales did in 2016. We are simply bringing England into line with the approach that has already been adopted in Wales, which has been successful and has not led to legal challenges.

The shadow Minister asked how we would determine whether a breakdown was due to a disease that an animal contracted before it entered the herd or when it entered the herd. We do not intend to make that distinction, since we are trying to incentivise caution among farmers about the animals they buy in. We want to make clear that if farmers are trying to go clear, they should not buy in animals that are at high risk of having TB. If it is possible for farmers to delay re-stocking and be more cautious about the way they do that, they may choose to do that.

I was very clear—we changed the order from its original draft to reflect this—that I want to ensure that any farmer who signs up to the CHeCS-accredited scheme to demonstrate that they are taking biosecurity seriously and taking proactive action to reduce the exposure of their herd will still qualify for 100% compensation. Any farmer who might be affected by this 50% reduction by bringing animals into the herd when they have an ongoing breakdown can mitigate that immediately simply by signing up to the CHeCS accreditation scheme. Anyone can join CHeCS; they have that option.

The second option, which should be seen in the context of earlier points, is that if a farmer has a breakdown or an animal is brought on, he would now have the option to go for private slaughter and get the salvage value under one of the other provisions that we are introducing. Even if a farmer said, for entirely ideological reasons, “I refuse to do biosecurity because I believe badgers are to blame, and I am not going to do biosecurity; I won't sign up to checks,” he still has the option to get a salvage value by sending that animal to a local abattoir of his choosing.

My final point is on scale. About 1% of cattle herds bring animals on to their herds when they are under a restriction. They tend to be predominantly dairy herds. We suspect that around 250 herds might be potentially affected by this measure, but every single one has the option to join the CHeCS scheme and to immediately mitigate that risk. That would be a positive step forward.

Environment and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Revocations) Order 2018

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 General Committees

[Dr Drew]

What the right hon. Gentleman says, as a former Immigration Minister, is very interesting. I know that he had to deal with such issues. I am just making the point that we do not have enough labour in rural areas, particularly in farm supply, and that we must address that. Like everything else, that is part of a much bigger debate, which no doubt we will touch on in the Agriculture Bill, but I am just looking at what is happening at the moment, with insufficient labour to pick fruit and veg.

I talk to my farmers, just as the right hon. Gentleman will to his, and trying to get labour to do milking and some of the general work is not easy, and that situation is particularly acute because we are losing migrant labour, for whatever reason. Many of my farms have traditionally employed people from abroad for periods of time, which is why we have been critical of the Government’s attempts to address this in the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. That should have been in place a long time ago to encourage people to come to this country for a specified period for specified work. That has not happened, and we will see how the new proposal operates, but it is a bit late and it seriously under-provides for the numbers we need in the current acute crisis.

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

I do not want to prolong the debate further but, reflecting on the number of orders that this order revokes, I wonder whether those have been captured as part of the one in, one out regulatory reform process—whether we have already seen ones in for these ones out. Or is it my hon. Friend’s view that they are being saved up for the 800 Brexit statutory instruments that we are shortly to get?

[Dr Drew]

I do not want to be taken away from what we are debating today. I am sure we will have plenty of other opportunities to talk about Brexit issues. However, given the Government’s emphasis on the number of statutory instruments that will be associated with the Agriculture Bill, we might as well get used to what we are doing because we will be testing a lot of them in the SI process. I would prefer that to be done through primary legislation with our amendments to the Bill, but that is not where we are today.

These orders are largely historic and we do not have any issues with the revocations, other than that we are laying down the ground rules of where we will try to move to in the Bill to get the Agricultural Wages Board back in some form. I accept what the Minister says. The board was not perfect, but it needed reforming, not abolition, and that is our great sadness on the Opposition Benches. I am indebted not only to Unite but to Sustain, which is not a trade organisation per se but tries to encourage different ways of producing our food. It feels very strongly, as do Opposition Members, that that would be better advanced if we had some form of agricultural wages board.

We are open to suggestions. If the Government want to come back with a way in which we can solidify and restructure the setting of agricultural wages and conditions, we are only too willing to be part of that process. Likewise during the Bill, we will not be there to wreck it but to reform, improve and enhance it.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

At the Commonwealth summit, we highlighted more than £66 million that we will be spending to help Commonwealth countries in particular to tackle this issue, including by increasing the professionalism of waste management. The Global Plastic Action Partnership goes beyond that to cover the world. It is a public-private partnership. I am pleased to say that we have invested £2.5 million in it, and we are now getting funding in from Canada, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Dow Chemical—and more companies are joining.

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

The amount of UK plastic going into our oceans remains an international scandal. Following the publication of the long-awaited 25-year environment plan, will the Minister set out when we will see legislation to enshrine those warm words into law and to make sure that action on plastic is not only firm but in the statute book and enforceable against those who are still putting plastic into our oceans at home and abroad?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I think that particularly in the middle east, where Christians are often a persecuted minority, we speak up regularly about their plight. The Anglican Church also speaks out on the persecution of other denominations. The campaign that Christians have supported for the better protection of the Yazidi minority is just one example in that region of how we must be prepared to speak up for others.

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

The recently published commission on religious education set out a framework for updating RE and teaching the importance of religious freedoms. What steps is the Church of England taking to implement its findings?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The Church is very supportive of improved religious literacy in our schools. If ever there was a time to understand better the world we live in, it is now. This is the time when we need to equip our children, whatever their faith or background, to better understand what sometimes underpins the conflicts that exist around the world. So this is a timely intervention and I am pleased we have moved away from a now rather old-fashioned view that, if we just stamped out the teaching of religion, everything would be fine—nothing could be further from the truth.

Middle Level Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the sake of clarity, it might be useful for the House to know that it is perfectly in order for Members to speak on Lords amendments 2 to 20 as well as amendment 1, as they have been grouped. There is no real need for me to say that—I merely say it for the sake of clarity. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) has addressed amendments 2 to 20, and clearly I would have called him to order had that not been in order. He is rarely not in order. We are now debating Lords amendment 1, together with amendments 2 to 20.

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

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for a full and detailed description of the Lords amendments. Although his constituency, and mine in Plymouth, are some distance from the geographical area in focus, the legislation has important consequences for that locality, so it is right that we give it due attention.

The Bill amends and updates the powers of the Middle Level Commissioners to regulate navigation on the Middle Level of the fens in Cambridgeshire and west Norfolk. The legislation that the Bill updates is over 150 years old, so the Bill brings the Middle Level into line with powers granted to the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust and the Broads Authority in Norfolk. The existing legislation dates from the 18th and 19th centuries, primarily the Middle Level Act 1862—who does not remember that gorgeous piece of legislation? The foreign policy mastermind, Henry John Temple, Third Viscount Palmerston, was in his second term as Prime Minister. A member of the now defunct Liberal party, he was grappling with the American civil war. Queen Victoria was on the throne. We had riots in Lancashire over the cotton recession. The new Westminster bridge opened in London, and criminal law was amended to make robbery with violence punishable by flogging. We remember that year well. Across the pond in 1862, Abraham Lincoln announced that he would issue an emancipation proclamation the following year—what a time to be alive. We had the Middle Level Act on top of that—indeed, our cup overfloweth.

Turning to the Bill, the Middle Level Commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area and are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. I mention that, because many people will want to know what and where the Middle Level is. The Middle Level, the largest of the great levels of the fens, was reclaimed by drainage of the land in the 17th century, and consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, 100 miles of which are statutory watercourses. If it were not for the operations of the commissioners and the local internal drainage boards, much of that fenland would be under water as it is below sea level, which would have a devastating impact on the 100,000 people who live and work in the Middle Level area.

The chief executive of the Middle Level Commissioners, Iain Smith, has said that about 1,500 vessels use their locks every year and that about 100 boats are “hiding” unlicensed on the waterway, so it is important to update the laws, enabling them to have better control of the waterways that they seek to oversee and ensuring safe navigation, as the hon. Member for Torbay set out.

The amended Bill originally intended to allow the Middle Level Commissioners to charge vessels to use the waterways; fine people for staying longer than allowed at moorings; check that boats using the waterways have valid insurance; remove sunken or abandoned vessels; temporarily close sections of waterways for works, or for events; and enter into arrangements with other navigation authorities for the mutual recognition of registrations and licences—all good stuff, the House will agree. We know that the additional income for the commissioners could make a real difference to the fenlands and the waterways. The Bill will bring the legislation covering the Middle Level into the 21st century in line with other navigation authorities, as set out by the Bill’s sponsor in his remarks.

Improving Air Quality

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I feel privileged to respond to this debate for the Opposition. This is my first time at the Dispatch Box, and I am glad we have had such a good debate, with valuable points made and much agreement on both sides of the House, and with most of my speech helpfully already made by others. I will pay tribute to Members as I go through.

In particular, I pay tribute to the superb report from the four Select Committees and to the points raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield on the MP of the year award she was rightly given at the BusinessGreen leaders awards last night.

We can take two things from this debate. First, there is cross-party consensus that a crisis in air quality has been building for many years. Secondly, a number of voices from all sides, all parties and organisations are saying that the Government have been too slow in addressing this crisis and that more needs to be done. My west country neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, said that bold action is absent, and he is right.

It is not an understatement to say poor air quality is a genuine public health emergency in our towns. We know that poor air quality and air pollution is linked to cancer, asthma, stroke and heart disease. As we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, poor air quality contributes to the early death of 40,000 people a year. That is 40,000 mums and dads, grandparents, brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters. These are not just statistics; each represents a family tragedy, many of which could be avoided with faster, better, more comprehensive and bold action from Ministers. We are talking about 13 deaths while this debate has been going on. Even the Government accept that they need to do more, so the challenge is: why are they not and can they do better now?

On legal limits, one of the most damning aspects of the Select Committees’ report was the comments from the UN special rapporteur, who said he was

“alarmed that despite repeated judicial instruction, the UK government continues to flout its duty to ensure adequate air quality and protect the rights to life and health of its citizens. It has violated its obligations”.

Last year, the Evening Standard found that pollution in more than 50 sites in London had breached EU limits. Further evidence from across the country shows that is happening not just in the capital, but across the UK. As we have heard today, it is not just in towns and cities, but in rural areas.

Sadly, the Government have had to be dragged through the courts, failing three times on air quality—in April 2015, November 2016 and February this year, when Mr Justice Garnham declared the Government’s failure to require action from 45 local authorities with illegal levels of air pollution in their area “unlawful”. It should not take the courts to get the Government to act on this. I appreciate that the Minister was not in his post at the time, but the Government he represents were.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Government have spent £500,000 fighting and losing dirty air court cases, with the most recent costing them £148,135. When we have got nothing from the VW emissions scandal, it is doubly concerning that this money the Government have spent on lawyers could have been spent on mitigations. It could have been spent on walking and cycling, on protecting primary schools from polluting roads or on promoting action on dirty diesel.

We have heard today about particulate matter, which needs further debate. We have heard a lot about PM_2.5 and PM₁₀, but there is too little research and often too little focus on the harmful effects of nanoparticles, which are even smaller than PM_2.5, and especially on the potential harm of magnetic nanoparticles entering the brain. I encourage the Minister to set out what he thinks can be done to undertake further research on nanoparticles in particular.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend has given me something else to worry about on my Committee—I thought it was just nanoplastics we had to be worried about. Does he agree that, whether we are discussing plastics in the ocean or pollution in the air, we have to stop treating our environment—our rivers and our air—as one great big garbage dump, because we are conducting a massive experiment on ourselves and on the planet, and we do not know where it is going to end?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right and we need to talk about that much more. When we get into the detail of what is being said on not just plastics, but particles and air quality—the air we breathe and the things we throw away—we see that more and more education can produce better results.

In today’s debate, we have heard far too many examples of young people being exposed to harmful levels of particulate matter, as well as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and low level ozone. Our young people deserve better than breathing poor air, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is right to say that breathing clean air should be a human right. Exposure to PM_2.5 should not exceed 10 micrograms per cubic metre of air, according to the World Health Organisation, but in my Plymouth constituency the figure is 12 micrograms. In Saltash, just over the river, it is 11— the annual mean is 18 and 15 respectively.

Prince Rock Primary School, on my patch, knows all about that, as it is located on a busy road. We have heard from many other hon. Members about schools close to busy roads that are affected by poor air quality. Does the Minister have a similar school in his constituency? How many other Members have schools in areas of illegal air quality? The air quality close to our schools does matter. It matters to our young people. What is being done to educate teachers, children and parents about the risk of air pollution? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned, turning engines off while idling can help, and walking or cycling to school can make a positive difference. These things all add up, but if initiatives such as the daily mile are through areas with poor air quality, the effect and positive contribution of that work can be limited. All our children deserve to breathe clean air.

The Government must not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. That is why what we have heard today about the VW emissions scandal should concern us all. The failure to ban diesel and petrol engines early enough was also mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Britain must wean itself off dirty diesel for cars and trains. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) highlighted, the British Heart Foundation has found that even short-term inhalation of elevated concentrations of particulate matter increases the risk of heart attack occurring in just 24 hours, but the UK’s current legal limits for particulate matter are much less stringent than those of the World Health Organisation.

The flagship measure in the Government’s July 2017 air quality report was a pledge to ban new sales of conventional diesel and petrol cars by 2040. That is 22 years and more than four full-term Parliaments away. I wager not many of us will be in the House in 2040, such was the long-grassing of the commitment to finally get that introduced. However, it did not go far enough because hybrid sales would still be ignored. The Government have said themselves that

“almost all new cars and vans sold need to be near-zero emission at the tailpipe by 2040”

if they are to hit their air quality targets.

The Government’s lacklustre pledge was criticised by Mayors such as Sadiq Khan and Andy Street. We are in the slow lane when Britain should be leading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South highlighted so expertly, the plan for the UK to ban petrol, diesel and most hybrid cars by 2040 has been watered down, with Ministers now referring to it as a “mission”, and the much trumpeted “Road to Zero” strategy has been plagued with delays. Perhaps the Minister could explain what a “mission” is. It is not quite a commitment, less than a pledge, certainly not legally binding, perhaps more than a hope and a prayer, but not quite a plan. A mission simply is not good enough.

The Secretary of State for Transport has cancelled rail electrification, something rightly criticised in the recent Transport Committee report. Without rail electrification projects, Britain’s railways are still going to run on dirty diesel for many, many years to come.

We have heard today that the Government far too often work in silos. It is simply not good enough for DEFRA to push out press releases on air quality while the Department for Transport is busy pushing back commitments on diesel engines and cancelling electrification schemes. It does not have to be like this. Members have highlighted the urgent need for a clean air Act, and I am proud to say that Labour would introduce one. We will act on air pollution and deliver clean air for the many, not just the few. That really matters because, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said, this is about social justice. The links are there for all to see between poverty and poor air quality, and between the injustices of poorer communities breathing in poor-quality air and the shame that far too little has been done to help them.

The fact that the poorest communities are hit by the worst air pollution should shame this Government and shame our society. This issue goes right to the heart of inequality: if someone is poorer, the air that they breathe is of a lower standard than the air breathed by someone richer. That should be simply unacceptable in 2018. We need to be bold and tackle this invisible threat head on. Communities throughout the UK are suffering now, and if we do not deal with this, we will leave future generations with poorer health, poorer outcomes and more pollution to deal with. That is simply not acceptable.

The Committee on Climate Change reported today, 10 years after the Climate Change Act was delivered by a Labour Government, and it has delivered a damning verdict on this Government’s record. On air quality specifically, it doubles down on the point that we are not doing enough to modernise our transport sector, particularly the car industry. The report finds that the UK is on track to miss its legally binding carbon budgets in 2025 and 2030, due to lack of progress on cutting emissions from buildings and transport in particular. Lord Deben has said that the Government’s pledge to end the sale of pure petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is not ambitious enough, and he believes it is essential that we move the target closer to 2030, as do the Opposition.

We are not short of soundbites or press releases from DEFRA about air quality, but I say to the Minister that it is not the presentation that is at fault; it is the content, the substance, the plans, the action, the funding and the urgency. We all know what needs to be done, so I encourage him and his Department to get on with it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box.