Agriculture Bill
Debate between Neil Parish and John HayesMonday 3rd February 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I will try be quick as there are maiden speeches to be made.
I welcome the Bill, and I urge the Opposition to vote for Second Reading and then to try to amend it in Committee and on Report, because the amendments I tabled in the last Parliament, which the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, I might well reintroduce at a later stage. Now is the time to let the Bill through, which I welcome as an historic moment.
We want long-term certainty, as we move forward, so I am pleased that the Bill now includes a reference to multi-annual financial assistance plans, but while the Government lay out clearly how they are to phase out direct payments, which is wonderful, they are not so clear about how the ELMS and other payments will kick in. I look forward to some proper pilots. I know that some have been done, but they were started and then stopped and delayed by the problems in the last Parliament. We must have practical schemes in place as we replace the basic farm payment, and if we have trouble rolling out the ELMS quickly enough, we should reconsider the level of basic farm payment paid in the interim, because we must make sure that the money gets to farmers and the agriculture community.
The EFRA Committee looked at the role of the Rural Payments Agency in overseeing and enforcing fair deal obligations for businesses and purchasers of agricultural produce. I am keen to see how the RPA will work with the Groceries Code Adjudicator and hold processors to account—for instance, in the beef or lamb sector, if a processor is not paying the right price for the carcase, will we be able to hold them to account? Will the RPA be able to fine them? If we are to make them change their practices, we have to get in there and make it work. As I have said, I am keen to hear how the RPA and the Groceries Code Adjudicator will work together.
On food standards, the point has been made across the House that we produce some of the best—if not the best—food in the world to high environmental and animal welfare standards. We cannot allow in food that does not meet those high standards, so I look forward to things coming forward in Committee and on Report. As we design our new policy for enhancing our environment—planting trees, stopping flooding, and so on—we must also seek to enhance the way we grow our food. Agritech will be important in helping to reduce our use of sprays and fertilizers while also producing a great deal of food.
There are more than 7 billion people in the world today and there will probably be some 8.6 billion by 2030. Seeking to enhance our environment and manage our land differently is very moral from an environmental point of view, but feeding the population of the world is also a moral issue, so as we import food let us be careful that we are not importing the water to grow it and taking food from those who can least afford it. Also, if, as we enhance our environment and plant more trees, we reduce our food production, where will much of that food come from? It will come from Brazil. I have been to Brazil, as have many others, and seen them ploughing up the savannah and driving their cattle towards the rain forest. They are destroying much of their environment in order to produce food. I am sure that hon. Members can see my point. Let us be careful to keep that production in this country.
Furthermore, we rightly make much of holding carbon in the soil and planting more trees, but we sometimes lose sight of the importance of the carbon that is locked in our permanent pasture, in the grassland and in the hills. We must maintain the level of production in this country, especially from grazing livestock, in part because it is produced to high welfare and environmental standards.
Sir John Hayes
We should be proud of the efficiency and productivity of our farmers. In this debate about the environment, much of which I respect and agree with, we must not lose sight of the effectiveness and efficiency that has made our farmers leaders across the world.
Neil Parish
My right hon. Friend is right, and I am looking forward to seeing that in the Bill. As we leave the CAP and develop our own agriculture policy, we will have an opportunity not only to enhance the environment, increase biodiversity, plant more trees, and so on, but to look at the efficiency of our production and livestock breeding—for example, by introducing native breeds and cross breeding in order to deliver that very high quality. On crop production, let us use genome technology and everything that is there so that we can produce lots of food.
It is also important, as we look to managing our landscape in the future, that we seek to enhance our hedgerows and field margins, but we must ensure good production where we have very good fertile land. One thing that worries me about our policies going forward is that it is very much at the high end of food production, and that is great, but much of the population also like to enjoy good-quality chicken meat that is produced intensively but is also very reasonably priced. We produce intensively reared chicken in this country according to very high standards, and I do not want us to phase out production in this country and then import that type of meat from other countries where it is produced much more intensively. Likewise with cereals: we must make sure that the types of crop protection used to produce cereals that we import are also available to our farmers. If we do not, all we will do is export our livestock and our poultry and pig production.
This is an important Bill, and it contains much that is to be recommended. However, we must be careful to ensure that as we enhance the environment and our biodiversity we also increase production. We have an opportunity now to produce more food in this country and to be more self-sufficient.
Fisheries Bill
Debate between Neil Parish and John HayesWednesday 21st November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about how we help these fishermen. Can a certain amount of help be given regarding the fuel needed to bring back the fish? What is the value of the fish when it is brought in? Is it going to be sold on the open market, and do we then put a super-levy on it so that bringing it back is not too attractive? These are some of the issues that I am sure that our Fisheries Minister and Secretary of State will deal with in due course, if not necessarily in the Bill.
Mr John Hayes
My hon. Friend is displaying that his grasp of fisheries is at least as great as his grasp of farming. As he develops this thesis, which is essentially about replacing discards and quotas with closed areas and other measures to preserve fish stocks, will he say a word about industrial fishing? While it is true that fishermen should be able to keep what they catch, industrial fishing sweeps the ocean floor, and the CFP has been singularly ineffective at dealing with its environmental consequences.
Neil Parish
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We were talking earlier about pulse fishing, which is used in particular by the Dutch. That causes huge damage to not only the seabed but, potentially, fish stocks. I often think that going out to fish should be much more a question of licking a finger to see which way the wind is blowing, but it does not work like that anymore. We use huge sonar equipment so that we know exactly where the fish are, and we can hoover them up in massive amounts. As we fish, we therefore have to be careful that we keep the stocks sustainable. I always say that the difference between fishing and farming is that with farming, we can at least replace the stock if we want to, but fish are a wild stock and must be bred in the sea, so we cannot take out too many fish if we want to keep the stock sustainable. Those are very good points.
You probably do not want me to go on for too much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will do my level best to move on quickly. We need more clarity in the Bill about the practical arrangements, which we have talked about a lot, and I look forward to seeing more detail. In particular, I am concerned that fisheries might get bogged down in unnecessary bureaucracy. Many of these companies are made up of five employees or fewer, so we must ensure that the burden of bureaucracy is as small as possible.
There are concerns that once we have left the EU, we will no longer have an automatic right to land fish in any EU ports. That interesting point has already been raised today. While I am very enthusiastic about our getting out of the common fisheries policy and getting back these stocks of fish, we have to ensure not only that we have access to EU markets, but that too much of our fish is not landed in EU ports, because we have to make the best of the processing. All these things are essential. I know that some of them are not covered in the detail of the Bill, but they need to be recommended.
I feel that we can do a much better job with our own Fisheries Bill and by taking back control of our waters. Our fishermen, fish processors and anglers can and must have a better deal. I am sure that the Secretary of State and Ministers are aware that there is a huge expectation that we are going to do much better as an independent coastal state than as part of the common fisheries policy. Let us welcome the Bill, make a few little alterations that might be necessary, and do a much better job than has been done in the past under the CFP.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill
Debate between Neil Parish and John HayesMonday 29th January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 View all Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 January 2018 - (29 Jan 2018)
Neil Parish
I pay tribute to the great job that my right hon. Friend did as Transport Minister and in his many other ministerial roles.
It is very much the charging points—their accessibility and the ability to charge vehicles quite quickly—that will really encourage people to have electric vehicles. At the moment, only about 1% or 2% of vehicles are electric. We really need the infrastructure if we want that figure to be 25% or 30%. Until we get the infrastructure right, we will not necessarily get everybody to sign up to having an electric car. We have to be absolutely certain to get the infrastructure right.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been not only a student, but a mentor to me as my PPS and as my great friend. He is right, as he often is on this subject. It is right that we build an infrastructure that is accessible. It also needs to be affordable and recognisable. The arguments that have prevailed so far have focused on those points—that the infrastructure must be easily recognised by anyone who wants to charge their vehicle.
Diesel Vehicle Scrappage Scheme
Debate between Neil Parish and John Hayes(7 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Yes, priority does need to be given to the inner city, because that is where we are particularly trying to improve the quality—in the hotspots of poor air quality. There is perhaps also a need to help beyond the inner city, because—this is the point I have been making—people bought their diesels in good faith. Certainly, there should be a targeted approach. One of the problems with the previous scrappage scheme was that it was to boost car sales at that time—it is a lovely position for middle England to decide, “Let’s change our car.” In some ways, there may be a need to target partly by income as well. If we are not careful, a lot of the people who we most want to trade in their older diesels may be those who can least afford a new car. That is perhaps beyond my pay grade, but it is not beyond the pay grade of the Minister, who will reply in a minute.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
Almost nothing is.
Neil Parish
Good; I look forward to the Minister’s words of wisdom. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raises an interesting point—it is the hotspots in particular that we need to sort.
Road transport still counted for 34% of the UK’s NOx emissions in 2015, and the rate of reduction from the sector has slowed down because of the increased contribution from diesel vehicles. Turning to the Government’s plans, I was therefore disappointed that a scrappage scheme was not announced at the Budget. Of course, we are a little hopeful that something may be announced very soon. The Transport Secretary stated on “The Andrew Marr Show” in February that the Government were considering a scrappage scheme, but there have been no further announcements. I know that there are concerns about the costs of any scheme, and that is why it should be targeted and proportionate. It can be a key weapon in the Government’s armoury in tackling air pollution problems.
What is more, a scrappage scheme is very popular with the public. A recent survey of over 20,000 AA members showed that seven in 10 backed the policy, rising to three quarters among young people. A separate survey published by the think-tank Bright Blue just two weeks ago showed that 67% of Conservatives backed a scrappage scheme. Ministers, this is a policy with significant public support, especially as we move, dare I say it, towards a general election—that was not in my speech.
What would a scrappage scheme look like? First, it would mean replacement by ultra-low emission vehicles. Any potential scrappage scheme should have a stringent condition on the replacement vehicle. It should mandate users to swap their vehicles for an ultra-low emission vehicle or other forms of transport.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill
Debate between Neil Parish and John HayesMonday 6th March 2017
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2016-17 View all Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish
That is a very good point. We should lead by example in the House, and if more of us have electric cars, we shall need more electric charging points. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to my hon. Friend’s point—
Mr Hayes
I think that is an excellent point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know you will think so too. We will get on to it straight away. I will ask my officials—indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking them now, through you—to bring me some reports, as a matter of urgency, on how we can do something about the matter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Neil Parish and John Hayes(7 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hayes
It is important to appreciate, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, that this is not a matter of some high-flown theory about what might happen in many centuries’ time; it is about the wellbeing of people now in our cities and elsewhere. The direct relationship between air quality and health is well established. Pollutants are affecting the quality of life—more than that, they are affecting the health and wellbeing of our people. The issue is about the defence and promotion of the common good, which, as he and the whole House know, is always central to my heart.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I urge Ministers and the Government to do something about older diesel cars, either through taxation or a scrappage scheme. We can get electric vehicles in, but we also need to take diesels out, especially in our inner cities, with their hotspots of pollution. Unless we tackle that issue, we will not get the levels down.
Mr Hayes
Just this morning, I was with no fewer than 16 motor manufacturers looking at low-emission vehicles. It is vital that we promote electric cars. As you will know, Mr Speaker, this week we have published our Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which deals with the electric car charging infrastructure, among many other things. One can deal with this by sanction and penalty or through encouragement, incentive and a change of mind. I prefer to look on the positive side of these things.
Heathrow Expansion: Air Quality
Debate between Neil Parish and John Hayes(7 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) on securing this debate. She has been a regular, repeated and determined advocate for the case that she makes today.
The Government are straightforward about our plans, as my hon. Friend made clear in her speech. The Secretary of State has announced the steps that we are taking in respect of Heathrow, which she has drawn to the House’s attention, but in doing so, the Secretary of State was absolutely clear that it will now be subject to a consultation, that it will be gauged according to that consultation and that the Government are committed to the interests of local people, just as we are committed to the interests of people who wish to travel to and from Heathrow. Of course, she is right to suggest that squaring those two objectives is a significant challenge, but it is one that the Government are willing to meet.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that airport expansion can cause pollution not only from aircraft but from traffic going to the airport? We need many more electric cars, and we need to ensure that public transport runs not on diesel but on petrol or hybrid. What are the Government doing about that particular situation?
Energy Market Reform
Debate between Neil Parish and John Hayes(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)
A long, long time ago, cavemen discovered that flint made fire, but the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) barely raised a flicker, let alone a flame. I grant that there was a good deal of heat, and she certainly generated plenty of friction, but there was not a gleam of illumination as to why, in power, Labour did so little to deliver the kind of market reform that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) just claimed was so necessary. Is it any wonder that the right hon. Lady finds herself in the dark shadows of opposition, not the bright light of power?
I say that not in anger but in sorrow—sorrow not only because I know that the right hon. Lady is a great deal more than window dressing, and because she made some strong points about market entry and creating a more plural marketplace to create downward pressure on prices, but because, more profoundly, she knows, and I know she knows, that the debate on energy policy deserves better than a half-hearted advocacy of a half-baked motion, and because she also knows that the country’s future should be characterised by a cross-party approach and a bound commitment to plotting a path to a future where energy supply is secure; a future where we build an energy infrastructure that is fit for purpose; a future where the vulnerable are protected from unaffordable energy bills; and a future where the needs of the many, not the interests of the few, drive an energy policy that is for the people, not, as was sadly the case under the previous Government, coloured by the demands of the powerful.
Yes, absolutely that means market reform in order to foster clarity and sow certainty so that businesses can make their business plans and invest in the way I described. Yes, it does mean a generation mix sufficient to guarantee resilience and bring security, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said. It means, too, moving to a market that is more responsive and competitive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) advocated. It also means more nuclear, by the way, as Members who are as great fans of nuclear power as I am will be relieved to hear. And it means communities benefiting, guiding and owning the energy infrastructure, not having infrastructure, such as onshore wind turbines, scattered across our precious land like an atavistic echo of dark satanic mills.
I am reluctant to be too hard on the Opposition, however, because I never seek contumely, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and because I know that they are handicapped by two things, among many. First, they know that tariffs are an important way of driving down the price people pay for heat and light and that the Prime Minister’s intervention and the subsequent discussions have opened up that debate in a new and helpful way. Secondly, they also know that in the 13 years for which they were in control there was none of the landmark legislation necessary to secure our energy future—they dithered, they delayed, they deferred.
Who was the ditherer in chief who presided over this spectacular inaction? It was none other than Disraeli’s new best mate, the Leader of the Opposition. Just a couple of years ago, as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, he told the House that the purpose of his own energy Bill was
“to strengthen Ofgem’s powers in a number of respects and to make it a more proactive regulator”.—[Official Report, 7 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 254.]
Yet now, when asked what they would do by a hard-pressed pensioner living in fuel poverty, by a hard-pressed farmer facing a cold winter or by a hard-pressed family anticipating Christmas with fear because of energy bills, Labour’s answer is clear as crystal: reform Ofgem and yet again rearrange the regulatory framework to invent a new quango. If they were running Byzantium, they would want it to be more bureaucratic.
In contrast, we will take direct action with a Bill published in weeks, not months, to help people get lower tariffs, using all in our power to address the issues of fuel poverty and bills that are too high for the vulnerable groups that have been supported by so many speakers in the debate. We are also providing immediate assistance to those who need help with their energy bills through our four-year warm home discount. The previous Government’s voluntary scheme meant that vulnerable people were offered different tariffs simply because they happened to have different energy suppliers, but our mandatory scheme helped 600,000 vulnerable pensioners last year alone through a £120 rebate on their energy bills.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) said that she would rather have Labour’s record than ours. Let me tell her that the number of fuel-poor households rose year on year from 2004 to 2009 from 2 million to 5.5 million. That is Labour’s sorry record in defence of the poor.
Neil Parish
DCC plc owned between 40% and 50% of the heating oil market and also trade as BoilerJuice and GB Oils. Will the Minister ask his officials to investigate the dominance in the heating oil market of one particular company?
Mr Hayes
I have to say that in my hon. Friend’s constituency there are really only two principal heating oil suppliers. He is right that that does not create necessary competitive pressure. I shall certainly ask my officials to consider such issues. Indeed, my hon. Friend made a powerful and persuasive speech on the subject during the debate.
We are providing support through the winter fuel payments and cold weather payments, which this Government have increased from £8.50 to £24. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) have said, we need to target the support in the most effective way. Through a new obligation from 2013 we will require energy companies to deliver support for heating and insulation for the most vulnerable. This is about demand. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) said, we have too often debated energy only in terms of production and insufficiently in terms of consumption.
How curious it is that, bedazzled by the glitz and glamour of wealth, the Labour party pandered to corporate power over those 13 years. Keir Hardie must have looked down, wringing his hands in horror. They pander and ponder, bourgeois left minds honed to wander.
As an admirer of Joseph Chamberlain, only in my dreams did I believe that one day I would be the first Tory Minister in decades to advocate tariff reform at this Dispatch Box. Although these are different tariffs and different reform, I am delighted to do so today. I repeat that we will use all in our power to ensure through the Energy Bill that people get the best deal.
That is the difference between my party and the Labour party. We act; they meander, pander and ponder. They want to change the regulations; we want to change the policies. They want a different Ofgem; we want to make a difference to people’s bills.