Water Companies: Sewage Discharge

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on her introductory remarks. As has been said, England has the worst river quality in Europe: 0% of rivers meet good chemical standards, and only 14% meet good ecological standards. We heard how raw sewage was dumped into rivers more than 400,000 times last year. I pay tribute to campaigners such as Surfers Against Sewage for the role that they play with the ocean conservation all-party parliamentary group. They have been pressing on this issue for a very long time. I also pay tribute to the indefatigable Feargal Sharkey.

I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that we had on the Environment Bill measures, other than to say it is very disappointing that the Government have repeatedly failed to back efforts by the Lords to protect our waters. I suspect that we will hear more from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on that.

[Mrs Miller]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would rather not, because I have only a few minutes, and the right hon. Lady has already spoken.

I will talk about the local situation, but first, I want to express concern about reports that raw sewage spills in Honiton are threatening the first wild beaver colony to live on an English river for 400 years, which is part of a trial approved by the Minister’s Department. I hope she will agree that it is wonderful that beavers are being reintroduced into our natural environment, and I am very concerned about the threat to them.

In Bristol, particular issues have arisen recently. Conham river park is a popular wild swimming spot for local residents, and the—

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. We have a Division in the House and will come back in 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I was saying before I was very rudely interrupted: I wanted to talk about particular local concerns. I pay tribute to The Bristol Cable for doing an excellent report on the problem, from which I will quote fairly extensively. There are two areas in Bristol where it seems to be of particular concern. One is the Conham River Park; this is a popular wild swimming spot, and one of my staff went—

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will give up on trying to talk about Conham River Park for a moment and talk instead about Warleigh Weir near Bath, which is another popular swimming spot. Multiple cases of sickness have been reported in swimmers there. In one of the most recent incidents, which took place a week ago, a storm overflow 4 km upstream had started releasing raw sewage into the Avon. Data since then—as I said, The Bristol Cable is reporting on this issue—show that sewage was dumped from the overflow 67 times last year. In total, Wessex Water, which I think covers the Minister’s area as well, released sewage into the natural environment more than 14,000 times in the first eight months of this year. It has to be said that Wessex Water has denied that this would cause swimmers to fall ill. It has suggested that it was agricultural run-off, wildlife or whatever, but I would argue that sewage bears a fair part of the responsibility. The Conham Bathing Water group has carried out tests and found that, at their worst, E. coli levels were over 20 times what the World Health Organisation deems to be a sufficient level for people to go swimming.

We know that the cost of changing the sewerage infrastructure would be massive and would be added to bills, but the problem has got too bad for us not to seize the initiative and act. The Environment Agency has recently given the green light for water companies to dump even more sewage into the rivers due to Brexit-related chemical shortages. As has been said, we need a properly resourced Environment Agency and long-term, legally enforceable targets on water quality. This situation cannot just be allowed to slide. I am not quite sure what the process is, but the campaigners at Warleigh Weir and Conham River Park are campaigning for designated bathing water status. Does the Minister have any advice on how they can achieve that? How will she ensure that rivers in our area are suitable for swimming in?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

We, too, obviously pay tribute to all the great work that Peter Ainsworth did, particularly in this area.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and wish her every success with her virtual Surrey-wide COP26 climate summit. Many other colleagues are doing similar, really great events. DEFRA is working very closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on how future planning reforms could make a really big difference to our environmental outcomes. Protections, including those in particular areas—urban areas and such—will all come under that microscope. The Government will publish their response to the planning White Paper in due course.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The marine environment can play a huge role in climate mitigation, with blue carbon held in native oyster reefs, kelp forests, seagrass, salt marshes and so on. What are the Government doing to scale up the rewilding of our seas for biodiversity and blue carbon, an issue on which we could show global leadership at COP26 and at the convention next year?

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate tonight and a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is a proud champion for animal welfare on the Opposition Benches. I also want to echo the comments made on both sides of the House about our late friend Sir David Amess. I can think of no better tribute to him than this Bill passing through on to the statute book quickly and being a proud voice for the animals of the United Kingdom.

I declare a strong interest in this Bill as a veterinary surgeon, and I very much welcome it and all its intentions. Important action can come forward from it on primates, on livestock worrying and on zoos, but I want to focus my comments this evening largely on the movement of animals. As has been mentioned, the Bill needs to be clearer on some of the specifics. We need to go further in some areas as well. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), has just published a report on the movement of animals across borders, in which we looked at a lot of these issues. First, I would like to cover small animals. As has been mentioned, puppy smuggling is an abhorrent crime that needs to be stamped out, and I look forward to the Bill working towards that. We have seen an increase in this awful trade during lockdown and we need to stamp it out at all costs.

I welcome the comments about heavily pregnant animals. It is difficult to judge how heavily pregnant a dog is. It is currently illegal to import a dog during the last 10% of pregnancy, which is difficult to judge, so we should start looking at the last 30% to 50% of pregnancy.

The Select Committee has heard harrowing evidence of heavily pregnant dogs being shipped into the country, sometimes with fresh laparotomy wounds from a caesarean section, which is dreadful and really needs to be stamped out. We need to take strong action, and I would welcome it if the Bill could provide clarity.

As has been mentioned, we need to increase to six months the minimum age at which animals are transported. I agree with colleagues on both sides of the House about wanting to see that in the Bill, as it would help to reduce this dreadful trade of puppy smuggling.

It will also help if we reinstate the rabies titre checks and increase the post-rabies vaccination wait time to 12 weeks, which would be a win-win for the health status of the animal and will indirectly help on the age limitation. We need to look at those areas.

It is important to set a limit on pets per vehicle, and I welcome the discussions on reducing the limit from five to three. Dogs Trust surveys have shown that 97% of owners have three or fewer dogs, so it would be a sensible change.

I welcome the dialogue on banning the importation of animals that have been mutilated. We have talked about ear cropping and tail docking. In the past year, six in 10 small animal vets have seen dogs with cropped ears. We also have to consider popular culture, the media and celebrity lifestyles, which have a role in not normalising cropped ears.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As the hon. Gentleman is a vet, does he share my concern that the most popular dogs at the moment, flat-faced dogs such as pugs and various types of bulldog, have been bred to have deformities? He is talking about mutilation after a dog has been born, but does he share my concern that we should not encourage people to buy dogs that are very unhealthy because of how they have been bred?

[Dr Hudson]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Brachycephalic dogs have become increasingly popular, and people need to be educated about the risks such animals sometimes suffer later in life.

The Disney-Pixar film “Up” is a favourite of mine but, looking closely, some of the Dobermans in that film have cropped ears. We need to address the subliminal normalisation of such procedures in culture.

We must not forget cats, which have been mutilated, too. Just as dogs are being cropped, cats are being declawed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton will back me up when I say that that must also be stamped out.

There have been increased reports in the UK of diseases such as canine brucellosis, babesiosis, leishmaniasis and echinococcus. Some of these diseases have zoonotic potential, so I urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to increase the pre-import health checks on animals coming into this country. We also need to reinstate the tick and tapeworm treatments for animals coming in, as this will protect the travelling animals and the animals in this country, and it will also indirectly protect people.

Not one horse has been moved legally to the continent of Europe for slaughter, but the Select Committee has taken evidence that it is likely that thousands of horses have been illegally transported for slaughter in Europe. We need to make sure the Bill covers that. The evidence is troubling, so we need to stamp it out. Simple measures such as improving equine identification and moving to a digital ID system would help.

I want to move on to the export of livestock. I welcome the measures to stop the movement of animals for slaughter or for fattening for slaughter but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, we need to make it clear that the movement of breeding animals is outwith the frame of that part of the Bill.

We also need to make sure that we work with all the sectors to improve the conditions for animals as they are transported. It is important that animals are slaughtered as close as possible to where they were reared, which fits into the idea of eating locally produced, sustainable food.

Environment Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, rise to support Lords amendment 3. My Vauxhall constituency, just across the river, is the start of the congestion charging zone, and it contains some of the most polluted roads in the country. Data from the Taskforce for Lung Health found that background levels of PM_2.5 in Lambeth were more than 25% higher than the 10 microgram per metre cubed recommended limit. In some areas of Vauxhall, PM_2.5 levels are nearly 50% higher than that target. The taskforce also found that nearly 7% of deaths in Lambeth were linked to that issue, with devastating impacts on every age group.

We have all mentioned Ella Kissi-Debrah, who was just nine when she died as a result of severe asthma, which was induced and exacerbated by air pollution. She was hospitalised 28 times in 28 months, and last year she became the first person to have air pollution listed as a cause of death. My constituents in Vauxhall cannot wait any longer, and they keep putting themselves at risk because of that difficult air pollution. The roads putting them at risk are the roads they must use to access shops and amenities, or to get to work, school or play, whether by foot, bike, bus or scooter. They are the roads that people, including me, must send their children along to school every day.

Last week, I visited St Anne’s Primary School in my constituency, which was identified by the Mayor of London as one of the 50 schools in the most polluted areas of London. Although it was good to visit that school it was also quite sad, because during the visit the headteacher showed me a state-of-the-art living wall that is using vegetation to protect the children from all the air pollution coming from the main roads. Such innovations are impressive, but why must schools take such measures to protect our young children? That is not right.

The Government have said that they will consult between January and October next year on air quality targets, but how many more targets do we need? The data is there. The data is choking us—no pun intended. It already exists. We know from a 2018 report by UNICEF that the effects of air pollution are more serious for children than for adults. We know from data released last week by City Hall that the areas with the highest levels of deprivation, or those with a higher proportion of people from non-white backgrounds, are more likely to be exposed to high levels of air pollution. We have the tools at our disposal to set that target, so why can we not do so now? As the mother of a 4-year-old and a 6-year-old living in an inner-London borough, I do not want my children growing up with that pollution, nor do I want the children and young people I represent in Vauxhall to continue to grow up with such high levels of pollution. Let us set that target once and for all, bring an end to this, and bring

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I very much echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) said about air pollution. Earlier, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), mentioned that the Mayor of Bristol had spoken of the M32 going right into the heart of the city. It is the border between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). It goes through those inner-city areas, and we know that children living in those areas are particularly at risk.

When we have discussed that in various Select Committees and during the passage of Bills, I have found the Minister’s attempted justification for not adopting the World Health Organisation targets very weak, and I am afraid that the same is true today. Surely people’s right to have a log-burning stove is more than outweighed by the fact that there are 40,000 deaths a year because of air pollution. Surely that is far more important. However, other Members have more than done justice to the need to back the Lords on their air pollution amendments, so I want to talk briefly about Lords amendment 1, which has not been spoken about much.

There is no question but that we are in the midst of climate and ecological emergencies that simply are not being taken seriously enough, not just by the Government but by many others who, through their actions, are contributing to the problem and not helping to find solutions. I am usually quite sceptical about the value of grand declarations if they are not backed up by action—and often they are not backed up by action—but I think that formal recognition in the Bill of the gravity of the situation could make a difference.

We have led the way on that in Bristol. We formally declared a climate emergency in 2018 and a biodiversity emergency in February last year. As a result, we have a wide-ranging “one city” ecological emergency strategy, which serves as a blueprint for action on that front. Really, that is what it is about—not just making the declaration, but using that declaration as a way of stressing the urgency and driving action.

I support the Lords amendments on the office for environmental protection. The Bill should have been in force, and the OEP ready for action, for the end of the Brexit transition period. There is just no excuse for the Government’s delays and prevarications—or, it has to be said, for their reneging on their promise to base the OEP in Bristol, which I will not stop reminding them about. We have ended up with precisely the sort of governance gap that many of us warned about, which is shameful. However, now that we are where we are, we ought to accept the Lords amendments, which would ensure that the OEP is independent in nature, that it is able to properly hold Ministers to account for environmental wrongdoing, and that it has control over its own budget.

Finally, the fact that we are so far away from meeting our environmental obligations on air pollution, water quality—I think that will come up in the next group of amendments—and protection of biodiversity only reinforces the case for a strong OEP and more accountability for Ministers. However, there is nothing in the Bill to compel Ministers to act early to meet targets or take action where interim targets are missed. We have these long-term targets way into the future—we have a 25-year environment plan—but if we do not have binding interim targets, it is so easy to kick things into the long grass and say that we are working towards a date at some distant point in the future. We then find that that distant point in the future is suddenly upon us and nothing has been done to ensure that we reach the targets.

Lords amendment 12 would ensure that there are binding interim targets in the Bill, which is so important for our ability to hold the Government to account and to see incremental change that will get us to our final ambition. That needs to be kept in the Bill.

[Rebecca Pow]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. May I reiterate the condolences that have been expressed? I was not able to be in the Chamber earlier. I have not worn my environmental leaf suit today, as a mark of respect to those two great men—Sir David Amess, who did so much on animal welfare, which is very relevant to my Department, and James Brokenshire. I think we all feel the same about them. We are proud to have known them, and we send our condolences to their families. I am terribly sorry.

I thank all hon. Members across the House for their contributions. As ever, whatever our differences, we listen to what has been said and work very closely together on these matters. I will whizz through some of the questions and comments that were raised before summing up.

Let me refer first to the comments by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), just to get the devolution issue clarified. She talked about this Government not respecting the Scottish Government. The power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate respects the exercising of reserved functions by Ministers of the Crown. That was tested recently in the Supreme Court, which agreed with the Government. That judgment by the Supreme Court directly supports Lords amendment 29, tabled by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

We work incredibly closely with our farmers. We could not do any of what we are trying to do without bringing our farmers on board. After all, they manage, own or run at least 70% of the land. Many are already doing good really work on integrated pest management. With some of our new grants we have launched for innovation and tech in particular, we will be working with them to go further down this road, especially through our environmental land management scheme, sustainable farming incentive and so on.

Our healthy bees plan 2030 sets out how we will work with beekeepers and bee farmers to improve honeybee health, and we are improving our understanding, including by supporting a national pollinator monitoring programme. Alongside all that, current pesticide legislation requires that pesticide products and their active substances have

“no unacceptable effects on the environment…having particular regard to its impact on non-target species”

which includes impacts on bees and other effective pollinators such as hoverflies, moths and beetles. Risk assessments made for active substances are subject to public consultation and establish the key risks posed by pesticides. We continue to make decisions on pesticide use based on scientific risk assessment.

Turning to Lords amendment 65, biodiversity loss is a defining challenge for our generation and we must act now. This landmark Bill ramps up domestic action, including a requirement to set a legally binding target to halt species decline in England by 2030. The powers under clause 113 and 114 form an important part and support the ambition for domestic nature recovery. We will bring forward a nature recovery Green Paper before the end of the year, which will set out our approach to driving nature recovery in England. It will include consideration of the scope to amend the habitats regulations, as well as broader exploration of our approach to site designations and species protections.

In adapting our approach to nature conservation, I agree we must maintain and enhance protections. The powers have been tightly drafted and already contain strong safeguards. In exercising those powers, the Secretary of State must: have regard to the particular importance of furthering the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity; be satisfied that the changes do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided currently by the habitats regulations; and test this with Parliament and secure its approval through a vote. To be satisfied that there has been no reduction in protections, the Government have also publicly committed to consulting with the office for environmental protection and Government statutory nature advisers. We also remain bound by international nature conservation law and committed to those obligations. Therefore, I see no need for the amendment and I urge the House to oppose it.

Turning to Lords amendments 94 and 95, our world-leading due diligence measures will help to tackle illegal deforestation in supply chains by prohibiting larger businesses operating in the UK from using certain forest risk commodities, produced on land illegally occupied or used. Forest risk commodities are associated with wide-scale conversion of forest. Examples of those commodities include beef, cocoa, leather, soya, rubber and palm oil. This comes as the UK prepares to lead by example at COP26 in two weeks’ time.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Does the Minister not accept that legal deforestation is becoming as much of a problem as illegal deforestation? If it is deforestation per se of the Amazon, that is a bad thing. Bolsonaro is relaxing the rules in his country, and it is happening in other countries in the region as well, and as a result we are increasingly seeing products entering our supermarket supply chains that are linked to deforestation—there was a story last week about cheese being sold in UK supermarkets. That is bad regardless of whether the Government of the country authorised it or not.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady and take her point, but we have to work with other Governments to bring forward our legislation. Many of these countries—Brazil is a specific example—have protections but, in many cases, are not upholding them. This Bill will have an effect, if we can demonstrate that they are not upholding their protections and our products are coming from there. That all has to be in a transparent survey, and data has to be recorded by businesses, so the onus will actually also be on them, because they do not want to be seen to be selling products that are causing deforestation. We have worked extremely hard to get that provision into the Bill and we believe that it will help to make a difference on this issue.

Given the pioneering nature of the policy, we have included a statutory requirement for a review every two years to make sure that the policy is delivering as intended and that the things that are happening, exactly as the hon. Lady suggests, do not happen. However, conducting a review after just one year of the requirements coming into force, as the amendments require, does not provide sufficient time to understand the policy’s effectiveness.

Environment Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Obviously, we take SSSIs extremely seriously under their designations. There is a set pathway for SSSIs and for looking after them, but I think he will agree, if he listens to what I have to say, that the Bill contains some very strong measures on biodiversity, which are much needed and will help us to that trajectory of restoring nature.

I was saying that we have a legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance. The UK was also the first economy to set a target of net zero emissions by 2050. Our target for the sixth carbon budget is world-leading. The “Net Zero Strategy” published yesterday builds on the 10-point plan, the energy White Paper, the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy, and the heat and building strategy, setting out our ambitious plans across all key sectors of the economy to reach net zero. This is an all-in approach.

Of course, it is not just our domestic approach that counts. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss is our No. 1 international priority, which is why we are driving forward our COP26 presidency and playing a leading role in developing an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework due to be adopted at the convention on biological diversity COP15. Therefore, putting the declaration in Lords amendment 1 in law, although well-intentioned, is not necessary.

Lords amendment 2 would require the Government to set a legally binding target on soil health. I would like to be clear with the House and the other place that we are currently considering how to develop the appropriate means of measuring soil health, which could be used to inform a future soils target. However, we do not yet have the reliable metrics needed to set a robust target by October next year and to measure its progress. If we accepted the amendment, we could be committing to doing something that we cannot deliver or might not even know if we have delivered. I am sure hon. Members and hon. Friends would agree that that is not a sensible approach.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am a little concerned to hear the Minister say that they are still not ready to go ahead. From my recollection of the past few years, we talked about this issue in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee and when this Bill was in Committee. Has work actually started on this and how long does she think the programme of work will take? Why is it taking so long?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am pleased that the hon. Member, like me, is deeply passionate about soil. I think I held the first ever debate on soil in Parliament when I was a Back Bencher. It is something that I am personally very keen on. We believe we cannot commit to set the actual target until we have that baseline of robust metrics. We consulted and are working very widely with experts and specialists. Indeed, a range of pilots, tests and trials are running related to soil. Instead, I can provide reassurance that the Government, as announced in the other place on Report, will be bringing forward a soil health action plan for England. It will provide a clear strategic direction to develop a healthy soil indicator, soil structure methodology and a soil health monitoring scheme. All those things are absolutely necessary before we can set the actual target, but there is a huge amount of work going on, on the soil agenda. I am personally pushing that forward, as is the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), with whom I am working very closely on this matter.

Back British Farming Day

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Theo Clarke]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was about to say that we are an island nation, so it is extremely important that we are self-sufficient as a country. That is why British fruit and vegetables are so important.

Let me take two examples, of apples and pears, which are two traditional fruit trees that have been found in our country for centuries. In domestic production, total apple demand accounts for only about 38% and the figure is 18% for pears. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs data shows that there has been a significant fall over the last 30 years, so I urge the Minister to work with farmers to reverse this declining trend.

On the other hand, strawberry production is a very positive story. Last Friday, I was lucky to visit Littywood Farm in Staffordshire, where they grow thousands of strawberries, raspberries and cherries every year. I was very interested to hear that they are using modern farming techniques to significantly increase their yield of soft fruit and that they have invested in state-of-the-art polytunnels to make the harvesting process more efficient. That means they have been able to extend the strawberry season from two months to seven months this year, so this is a fantastic, positive story that is being replicated across the country, and I note that since 2010, figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that domestic strawberry production has grown by almost 50%. In 2019, UK production reached a new record of 143,500 tonnes; Members will be pleased to know that that is about 350 million punnets of strawberries, so we will definitely have enough to feed the crowds at Wimbledon and our tennis matches next year, and more. This is a very good example of a model for fresh fruit produce items, which shows that it requires people and real investment.

I will now talk about some of the challenges that farming has faced. We are all aware of the role that weather and mother nature have in determining a crop’s success year on year. Does it rain at the right time? Is the sun shining when wheat is being harvested? Of course, this is very much out of our farmers’ hands, but so much of farming does fall within the Government’s remit, and I hope the Minister will agree that it is very important that decisions made in Westminster have a positive impact in our constituencies in the countryside. I would like to share a story that I heard last week from one of my Staffordshire strawberry growers, which is really quite devastating. They told me that 3,000 tonnes of strawberries were thrown away this year due to not having enough labour to pick the fruit. That equates to approximately £1 million of turnover loss by this farm in just one year. I know we all talk about statistics, but let us remind ourselves that this is fresh food that could have been eaten on British dinner tables this year, but is being thrown away and wasted. Those are not just destroyed strawberries: that represents lost jobs for fruit pickers, and lost income for our farmers.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I was vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fruit and vegetable farmers for quite some time, and we had the then Farming Minister, who is now Secretary of State, come along to us some years ago. He was warned quite firmly by the fruit farmers there that this crisis was coming. Does the hon. Lady not agree that it should have been foreseen, and that steps should have been in place to make sure there was an adequate supply of agriculture workers so that we do not have food rotting in the fields?

[Theo Clarke]

The Government have taken steps to ensure there are seasonal workers, and if I make progress in my speech, I will come on to that topic shortly.

I was interested to read an industry-funded report last year that revealed that during the pandemic alone, labour costs have increased by 15%, which follows a 34% increase in wages over the past five years. I have heard from my farmers in Staffordshire that they are very concerned about the cost for growers: they have been told that they may have to pay for workers’ visas, travel, and covid tests in future. To put that in context, one of my local farmers told me that this could cost his business an extra £1,000 per seasonal worker, and on the basis that a farmer might employ 200 or 300 workers on their farm, that is hundreds of thousands of pounds of additional investment. A lot of my constituents will be asking, “Should fruit and vegetable farming remain? Is it economically viable?” That is why I urge the Minister to look into this issue.

It is very clear from the conversations I have had with local growers and businesses that it has been very difficult to recruit domestically. Very admirably, they worked hard to try to recruit domestic workers, but I was told that unfortunately, the manpower just is not there. I will give the Minister a particular example from my constituency, which I heard about at my meeting last week. One farm received 7,500 applications to be a seasonal worker. One hundred and fifty people were shortlisted, and 85 were offered jobs, of whom only 48 turned up. Thirty-two of those left after one week, 24 after two weeks and five after three weeks, so we can see that that farm put a huge amount of effort into recruiting workers, but the labour was simply not there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing the debate. I am sure we will all—including the Minister—profess to be united in our support for British farming, but over recent years not everyone has been prepared to back up their words with action, which is what British farmers need right now.

We have spent a long time in this place discussing the future of farming, through the passage of the Agriculture, Trade and Environment Bills. It was clear what the farming sector needed, which was for British standards to be protected, but the Government and many of their Back Benchers consistently voted down amendments to achieve that. That means that farmers have been badly let down by the Government. We see that now with the Government stalling over the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission and, in the trade negotiations with Australia, brazenly allowing unfettered access to Australian imports produced to unacceptably low standards, and trading away references to limiting global warming to 1.5°, just to get the deal over the line.

That is not the only way in which the Government are failing British farmers. We also see empty shelves in our supermarkets and food left to rot in our fields because of a lack of forward planning. We have a shortfall of 90,000 lorry drivers, as well as a critical shortage of agriculture workers, which we have just heard about. One producer in Scotland this week reportedly had to waste 3.5 million heads of broccoli and 1.9 million heads of cauliflower due to supply chain disruption. That is not just a scandal when farmers are struggling to earn a living and families are struggling to put food on the table. They will struggle even more if the £20 cut to universal credit and the rise in national insurance go ahead. It is also contributing to our environmental failure, given that 8% of global emissions are attributable to food waste.

Backing British farming should mean the Government pulling out all the stops to fix the supply chain shortage, rather than what I see as a shadow Transport Minister, which is Ministers across Departments burying their heads in the sand and just hoping it will sort itself out. On a more positive note, backing British farming also means supporting a sustainable agriculture mode fit for the future. It means embracing agroecological practices that ensure farming and nature benefit each other. It means pursuing rewilding, protecting biodiversity, promoting agroforestry, reducing reliance on pesticides and farming less intensively to protect topsoil. The Agriculture Act 2020, with its “public money for public goods” approach, goes some way towards promoting those practices. That is a welcome step in the right direction, but there is more to do on that front, to make those practices the norm, rather than the exception.

We cannot ignore the contribution of industrial animal agriculture to many of the issues we are facing, from the routine overuse of antibiotics and intensive systems to the destruction of the rain forest for cattle ranching and producing livestock feed. It was reported this week that in the Netherlands they are considering plans to force farmers to cut livestock numbers, due to the sheer scale of ammonia pollution. I am glad the NFU has thrown its weight behind the ambition for net zero but, if net zero is to become a reality and we are to have a genuinely sustainable food and farming system, all these issues must be addressed.



I am proud to be a Member of this House who backs British farmers through my words and my actions. I have consistently supported better scrutiny for trade agreements, pushed Ministers to embrace more sustainable models for agriculture, and called for action on the growing crisis in our supply chains. With both COP26 and the Christmas rush approaching, I hope that all Government Members, not just the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), will join me in pushing the Government to act.

COP26 Conference Priorities

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.

We have come a long way since the Paris agreement, which was secured at a time before it was commonplace to have national targets for emissions. Six years later, many nations have set unilateral net zero targets and are beginning to publish plans to meet them. I am pleased that the UK has now significantly scaled up our nationally determined contribution to 78% by 2035, although, as the Minister will know, I have many criticisms about the progress we have made to date.

The problem is that not all countries are prepared to pull their weight. Many have yet to set net zero targets, have set targets after 2050 or have failed to present more ambitious NDCs ahead of COP26. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on small island developing states, or SIDS, I want to focus today on the impact on them. They are in the frontline when it comes to the consequences of climate change, whether that is rising sea levels, extreme weather events, ocean acidification or collapsing biodiversity. These are all existential threats to these states. If we act to save them now, we will all benefit from the global scale of the action that is implemented.

Nation-based solutions have a real role to play in both mitigation and adaptation, whether that is reversing the collapse of our natural carbon sinks or restoring the coral reefs, planting mangroves and so on. There is much more that could be done. As one of the Marine Conservation Society’s blue carbon champions in Parliament, I know that measures to protect the marine environment are particularly important for these countries. They are vital, given their dependence on the blue economy. I hope that the Government will seek to prioritise agreements on protecting and restoring blue carbon stores at COP26, along with stopping the global decline in marine biodiversity and protecting our oceans.

While mitigation is, of course, crucial, I am pleased that a day at COP will be dedicated to the theme of loss and damage alongside adaptation. SIDS often do not have the funds to pay for the work that is needed—for example, the shift to renewable energy or the work that has to be done to rebuild after natural disasters. The pandemic’s impact on tourism has made the financial situation much worse for many of them. The recent volcanic eruption in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines could cost up to 50% of GDP, which shows the inherent economic vulnerability of these nations.

I am pleased that there is a day dedicated to climate finance at the conference, which will be vital for less developed countries. In 2009, richer nations committed to mobilising $100 billion in climate finance per year by 2020 for vulnerable nations, but that commitment has not yet been met, and much of what has been delivered has been via loans with standard repayment rates, which tiny little countries such as the SIDS would struggle to pay.

Developing nations saddled by debt are often trapped in a vicious cycle. Belize, for example, has defaulted on or restructured its debt five times in the past 14 years. The cut to the UK aid budget has already been mentioned, but many SIDS do not qualify for official development assistance because of the flawed metrics used, which do not take into account their vulnerabilities. We need a multidimensional vulnerability index, with looks particularly at climate vulnerability.

Finally, we need to make sure the voices of the small island states, including even the tiniest little islands, are heard in Glasgow. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what arrangements are in place to make sure that is the case.

Grouse Shooting

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I took part in the 2016 debate, which I think it is fair to say was not the best-natured debate that we have had in this place—it is an issue that arouses strong feelings. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for at least trying to do justice to both sides of the argument. I wrote to both Mr Speaker and the then Chair of the Petitions Committee after the last debate, because I felt that the person supposedly speaking on behalf of the petitioners sneered at them and spent the whole time rubbishing their arguments. To be respectful to the petitioners, a Member who takes on the role of speaking ought to do a neutral job in outlining what a petition is about. The hon. Member for Ipswich did that. He slightly spoilt it at the end with the argument about posh people, because that is something that was wrongly levelled at opponents of foxhunting. I do not think that is the case, and certainly the people involved in Wild Justice are absolutely passionate about conservation and are genuine in their concerns about the impact of driven grouse shooting.

The petition was interrupted by the 2019 general election. Just after that election, I joined the Petitions Committee for a few months. We were trying to get the petition debated—I think we even had a date in the diary—but covid put paid to any possibility of that. It was a good move by the Chair of the Petitions Committee to ask me to interview Chris Packham instead, and there is a transcript of my putting questions to him that we perhaps could have debated back then, which people can read on the House of Commons Petitions Committee website. I will refer to quite a bit of what Chris says in that interview during the course of my speech.

Chris has had a huge amount of abuse for speaking out on these issues—from dead animals tied to the door of his house, to death threats and so on. Whenever I speak about shooting issues, I get abuse on social media. There was a guy who sent me pictures of bacon sandwiches and spare ribs every day for 11 days—he got bored because I was not paying any attention to him. It does get quite nasty, and Chris has been on the receiving end of a lot of that, which I think is very unfortunate. He has done brilliant work with young naturalists, particularly those from neurodivergent backgrounds, and I pay tribute to him for that.

In the interview—as I said, the transcript is available—Chris started by talking about the fact that we are now facing dual climate and ecological emergencies. People are increasingly worried about what he describes as catastrophic biodiversity loss, and driven grouse shooting produces a very unhealthy landscape. That is the background context to the concerns. I asked him what he thought of the Government response—when the petition gets to 10,000 signatures, there is a brief written Government response—and he said he would be polite, but then he described it as “pathetic and derisory” and said it

“showed a depth of ignorance and wilful blindness that we didn’t want or expect.”

If that is him being polite, I would love to see what he really thinks.

In the written response, he said, “At least the Government acknowledges the importance of the peatlands and moorlands habitat. Our uplands have 75% of the world’s remaining moorland and about 13% of the world’s blanket bog.” People do not actually realise how unusual the UK is in having that as a natural resource, and we should be managing this precious habitat not for the dubious benefits of grouse shooting, but in the interests of biodiversity and ecosystem services—as valuable carbon sinks, offering flood protection and so on.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that those two are not mutually exclusive?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I might go on to say why it is problematic in the way they are managed. One of the problems that the campaigners supporting the petition have had is that they have got to the point where they are saying that the only answer is a ban on driven grouse shooting, because the people who manage the moorlands have not been prepared to meet them halfway and to address some of the issues—for example, the hen harrier persecution, the burning of the heather and so on.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On hen harriers, is the hon. Lady aware that there were 50 hen harrier chicks in 2006, zero in 2013 and 60 last year? It is really important that we look at the evidence and do not move to emotive arguments, and it is really important that we look at the facts. Does she not accept that there is work going on to improve hen harrier breeding?

[Kerry McCarthy]

There is work going on, but the hen harrier population declined across the UK and the Isle of Man by 24% between 2004 and 2016, with just 575 pairs remaining. Estimates suggest that there is sufficient habitat and food availability to support a population of over 2,650 pairs. We know that in England there is available habitat for more than 300 pairs, yet we are down to a very small number.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is the point: the numbers did decline from 2006 to 2013, but now they are on the rise again. It is really important that we look at the positive work that is going on in these areas rather than just thinking that it is all about the way that moors are managed.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The figures are nowhere near where they should be, in terms of what we could support, and it is not just—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

They are going up.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Member says that the numbers are going up, but they are going up from a very small base. As I say, the figures are nowhere near where they should be.

However, the fact is that raptor persecution is illegal and should not be happening, but it is happening on the grouse moors. Regardless of what the numbers are, the death of even one hen harrier is illegal and it should not be part of grouse moor management. That is the point that we should not lose sight of. It is not just a conservation measure to protect these birds; it is illegal to kill them.

Protecting this habitat could allow it to act as a valuable carbon sinks, offer flood protection and so on. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) might have something more to say about its role in flood protection. When I went to those areas after the floods of 2015-16, and when I have spoken to people after the more recent floods in those areas, I found real concern about the impact that the management of the moorlands is having.

As Chris Packham says, a healthy upland habitat should be covered with trees, blanket bog and deep layers of sphagnum moss that act like a great sponge, with deep peat storing all the water. However, the management of grouse moors directly militates against this, with the burning of the heather, the illegal raptor persecution that I have mentioned and the extermination of mountain hares. Chris Packham also spoke about weasels and stoats being caught up in spring traps, crows caught in cage traps, foxes caught in snares and endangered protected species also accidentally being caught up, and about the use of medicated grit and the leeching of toxins from lead shot into the groundwater. The bottom line is that all these measures to protect the grouse are not in the interests of conservation; it is just so that the grouse can then be shot.

Just as I do not accept the conservation argument, I do not accept the economic argument either. As Chris Packham says, the Government have never quantified this matter. The lack of data and the lack of transparency mean that we cannot say with any degree of accuracy how much money is going where, who is benefiting and who is not benefiting.

Chris Packham says that in Scotland a bit more information has been released. Nevertheless, if Scotland was thought to be the size of Ben Nevis, the economic benefit from grouse shooting there would be the size of a small banjo. That seems to be the official interpretation. I do not know why banjos have been brought into it; I do not know the difference between a small banjo and a large banjo. He is saying that, given that the area of land given over to grouse shooting in Scotland is between 12% and 18% of the total land, something far more worthwhile than the equivalent of a small banjo, in terms of economic benefits from that area, could be produced.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is going to explain why the banjo comes into it.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am not sure about banjos, but the premise that the hon. Lady gave before was that grouse management is there for shooting birds. I would say that that is not the case. Shooting is part of the environmental process that is going on. People who engage in grouse shooting involve themselves in environmental management. Just to kill all the grouse would mean, very simply, that there would be no grouse next year. The process has to be managed for the environment.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not accept that. If we look at the way the moors are managed, we see that it is to create the largest possible number of grouse, it is to avoid anything that might be a threat to the grouse, including natural predators, and it is destroying a lot of other wildlife at the same time. All that is not so that people can stalk through the undergrowth with their gun, in the way that we might think of the country sport of shooting. It is so that busloads of people can come in, stand there and just shoot, shoot, shoot—it is very much a numbers game. I would not say that has anything to do with conservation.

The birds would not be there in those numbers if they were not being artificially managed, in the same way that we get the imported pheasants and partridges when it comes to that form of shooting; they are there to be shot. As I have said, the way that is managed is related to that intensity and the sheer number of birds that people want to produce, rather than it being about any concern for conserving the natural habitat. As I said, we just do not have the numbers. I do not know whether the Minister will come up with numbers to tell us who is benefiting from this and what contribution it makes.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady asks who is benefiting, but that is quite clear. There are gamekeepers in my constituency and hundreds of people are employed in the broader hospitality sector supported by shooting. Those people are benefiting. If the hon. Lady would like to meet some of the people who benefit economically from this activity, I would be delighted to host her in my constituency, where she could actually meet some of the people involved in the industry.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I suspect they are not benefiting to anything like the same extent as the people who own the land, many of whom are extremely wealthy. They are raking in money from this: I have seen the amount charged for some of the packages for people to come to these areas and take part in shooting days, and I suspect that not an awful lot of that trickles down to the local economy.

We need to see more action from this Government. It is very disappointing that they refused to accept Labour’s amendment to the Environment Bill on the burning of heather and peatlands—again, I think we will hear more about that from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam. I do not believe the measures introduced by the Government on 1 May go far enough. I note the comments of the Climate Change Committee in its latest report, which was released last Wednesday: that there is an increasingly urgent need to restore degraded upland peatland and manage it more sustainably. I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks can be done, because obviously, that comment from the Climate Change Committee came after any action that has been taken by the Government to date. I hope that in light of what the Committee has said, the Minister will consider talking to her colleagues in the Lords and strengthening the Environment Bill to address that concern.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. A great deal of Members wish to speak in this debate. If you make and take interventions, some of those people are going to be excluded—and we hope to get everybody in. We also hope to keep a good atmosphere in this debate, and not to replicate what I understand happened during the last debate on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. Like her, I am a great fan of family hubs. The families and households commission will be looking carefully at how family hubs can help families to flourish and how churches could be involved in this important work.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

What steps the Church of England is taking to promote rewilding in new tenancy agreements.

[Andrew Selous]

I commend the hon. Lady’s continued focus on this vital area. Our new farm business tenancies strongly encourage good environmental practice, such as ensuring that watercourses are kept clear, hedgerows are well maintained and topsoil is preserved. We are reviewing tenancy obligations as our new environmental strategy is developed.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Member for his engagement with me on this issue—and his tolerance, in some cases. I am pleased to see that the commissioners will be carrying out a natural capital audit of their 105,000 acres of land. Can he say whether that is likely to result in recommendations on conservation and rewilding? If so, will he consider looking at the National Trust’s model tenancy agreements to see whether that is something that could be put in future tenancy agreements on the commissioners’ land?

[Andrew Selous]

I continue to be grateful to the hon. Lady. The Church wants to be an exemplar in this area. I can tell her that we expect the results of the natural capital audit shortly and will use it to see where we can enhance the environment of our rural land after we have listened to and collected the necessary data from our tenants.

World Oceans Day 2021

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate and on an excellent speech. I do not think there was anything in it with which I could disagree.

Sadly, World Oceans Day has increased in importance each year as our seas fall victim to the impact of climate change and our abuse of our planet’s precious resources. Like the hon. Lady, I have signed up to be a blue carbon champion in this Parliament as part of the project run by the Marine Conservation Society and Rewilding Britain. I also support the WWF Ocean Hero campaign. I pay tribute to all those groups for their campaigning, along with the likes of Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, Surfers Against Sewage, and Pew, to name but a few.

The challenges facing our oceans are huge and numerous. Rising temperatures, over-fishing, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, bottom trawling, bycatch and extreme weather events are wreaking havoc on our ocean environments, threatening the rich biodiversity within them and the livelihoods of those who depend on the blue economy. The prospect of deep-sea mining is also deeply alarming. Our oceans’ resources should be protected, not plundered, and I am pleased that we are proceeding with caution on that front, but I would be very concerned if, on the basis of the current evidence, any licences for exploitation were granted. I know that they are up for review soon, so I hope the Minister can offer us reassurance on that point.

As an island nation and with so much of the world’s seas and oceans falling within our territorial waters, the UK should lead the way on the issue. We hear talk of ambition with the 30by30 target, but what we have in reality is marine protected areas that are little more than paper parks, as the review by the Environmental Audit Committee found in the previous Parliament. As with the Fisheries Act 2020, the Government have been actively stripping marine protections out of legislation. I welcome the Benyon review and the announcement on highly protected marine areas, but I am slightly cynical about what that will mean in practice. I hope it represents an improvement on the marine protected areas.

As the hon. Member for North Devon said, we need a proper commitment to outlawing destructive practices such as over-fishing and bottom trawling, and we need sustainability to be put at the heart of our fisheries strategy, with the ramping up of monitoring and enforcement. The Government must also press forward with a ban on the detonation of munitions, as those detonations harm marine life, and the adoption of less damaging deflagration techniques. We need to think long term about ocean protection, setting out how we can reach net zero emissions in our marine activity and developing a blue carbon strategy to rewild our oceans, protect blue carbon stores and develop low carbon fisheries and aquaculture. I am glad that the Marine Conservation Society has called for exactly that today.

As chair of the recently formed all-party parliamentary group on small island developing states, I have been speaking regularly to nations that have contributed least to the changing of our climate, but which suffer the worst effects of that. Rising sea levels are an existential threat to many small island developing states, as are climate-related extreme weather events. Those nations rely heavily on the blue economy for food, resources and tourism, and they have been badly hit by covid and the closure of countries to tourism in the past year.

Small island states desperately need support for ocean conservation measures and climate change adaptation, including natural climate solutions such as restoring mangroves and coral reefs. During sessions of the group, it has been really interesting to hear that instead of giving money for the building of concrete sea barriers, it would be far better to rely on natural carbon solutions. Reforming access to climate finance and investing in the blue economy—for example, through debt-for-climate swaps and blue bonds—will be central to that.

This is a pivotal year for ocean protection with the convention on biological diversity, COP26, and the global ocean treaty being negotiated internationally. We know that our oceans have an immense capacity to heal themselves if they are given the space to breathe, but that requires us to be much bolder at home and abroad to ensure that those precious resources are protected and restored. When we talk about ocean protection, it is obligatory to talk about “Blue Planet”, which, as I never hesitate to point out, was made by the BBC’s natural history unit, based in Bristol. As Sir David Attenborough said last year:

“We are at a unique stage in our history. Never before have we had such an awareness of what we are doing to the planet, and never before have we had the power to do something about that. Surely we all have a responsibility to care for our Blue Planet. The future of humanity and indeed, all life on earth, now depends on us.”