Environment Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]]

Despite the infectious enthusiasm of the Minister, I have to say that, sadly, the deficiencies of the Bill bolster my scepticism about the Prime Minister’s supposedly Damascene conversion to eco-warrior from someone who, in only 2015, claimed that the science surrounding warming temperatures was “without foundation”. But if his Government want to prove me wrong, they certainly have the chance to do so today. First, they could support new clause 9, which would provide that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with an environmental objective to achieve and maintain: biodiversity; support for human health and wellbeing; and sustainable use of resources. The new clause includes specified environmental commitments that have been made by the Government including in the UN Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of September 2020 and under the Climate Change Act 2008.

Secondly, the Government should support amendments 25 and 2, whose principles are supported by the British Lung Foundation. These amendments set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM_2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. As it stands, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition for the achievement of this target. I stress to the Minister the importance of these amendments to my constituents. A 2018 report showed that Salford and Manchester were in breach of these WHO guidelines, and air pollution, primarily caused by vehicles, is said to contribute to at least 1,200 deaths a year across Greater Manchester.

Finally, the Government should support amendment 39. There is huge concern about the decision to allow a derogation regarding the use of certain neonicotinoids. The decision goes against all commitments that the Government made to help nature, including an explicit pledge to keep pesticide restrictions after Brexit. Without the scrutiny that amendment 39 would provide, there is a significant risk that the emergency authorisation of such pesticides could sadly become a common occurrence.

There are so many additional amendments in this section that have been eloquently articulated by Members today, but it is clear that we are in a climate and ecological emergency, and that we need this Environment Bill to create the highest of environmental standards. Without the changes outlined, it simply does not do that; it is just greenwash.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

This is a good and welcome Bill. I support it, but I want it to go further, which is why I have put my name to amendment 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). One area in particular in which we should go further, and which is of concern to my constituents, is in relation to PM_2.5 particulate pollution, which is perhaps the most dangerous type of pollution to human health. Its impact on things such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer are well documented.

I recognise that the Bill as it stands commits to bringing a new target for PM_2.5 before Parliament by October 2022. It is what Ministers have always said in previous debates and it is good, but we need to go further. The Bill does not, for example, commit to reaching World Health Organisation guidelines and does not give a timescale for adoption, even though Ministers have said that that is their ambition.

As I understand it—it has been said in the House previously—past DEFRA studies have shown that we can achieve the WHO standard of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. That would be a reasonable timeframe, and, if it can be done, there is no reason why we should not put it into the Bill. It is an important issue, even in a constituency such as mine—a comparatively leafy London suburb, which has better scores on pollution than many parts of London, but is still above the UK average in a number of respects—and it is a matter of real concern for my constituents. Putting that commitment, which we want to achieve anyway, on the face of the Bill would show willing on our part towards our own citizens. It is also worth saying that it would increase our influence on these matters abroad, because, at the end of the day, these matters have to be tackled internationally.

There is a great deal of focus on the integrated review that is under way, and many countries have punched above their weight by taking a lead on this issue. New Zealand is a great example, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. If we were to set out our stall and commit ourselves to tackling PM_2.5 pollution in this way on the face of the Bill, that would be a really positive message for global Britain, particularly in the run-up to COP26 in November. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will indicate that the Government want to move forward positively and vigorously on this, and I suggest that that is a way they can do so.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]]

A number of my constituents have contacted me to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection should be an independent and powerful body capable of ensuring that the Government uphold environmental laws on everything from plastic pollution to air quality. They are concerned about clause 24 of the Bill and have pointed out that, if the Government have the power to tell the Office for Environmental Protection how to do its job, the office cannot be truly effective; I very much share their concerns. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has remarked that it is

“essential that every step is taken to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is as independent from the Government as possible, to give the public confidence that the Government will be properly held to account on its duty to protect the environment.”

I therefore support amendment 23, which would delete clause 24.

The quality of the air we breathe is vital to our wellbeing. One of my constituents wrote to me last week to say that air pollution is a daily issue for her and others like her suffering with lung conditions. She told me how, on days when air pollution is high, her symptoms can flare up so badly that she is unable to leave her home. The Government have already committed to adopting a new binding target for PM_2.5 through the Bill. However, as Friends of the Earth has pointed out, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition or a deadline for its achievements. Amendment 25 is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM_2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guideline of below 10 micrograms per cubic metre, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.

I now turn to the matter of bees. I pay tribute to the work of Flourish at Ford Way in Upton for the work it does in keeping hives and producing excellent honey. More than 50,000 people have signed The Wildlife Trusts’ petition urging the Prime Minister to overturn the Environment Secretary’s recent authorisation of the emergency use of a bee-killing pesticide for farmers to use on sugar beet crops in England. That shows the real strength of public feeling on this issue.

Amendment 39 would require Ministers to allow parliamentary scrutiny of exemptions granted to allow plant protection products banned under retained EU law, such as neonicotinoid pesticides, where they are likely to impact bees and other species covered by an environmental improvement plan. In conclusion, I urge Members to back these key amendments to ensure the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection, improve air quality and protect bees.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Robert Neill Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

I will, if I may, come to that very shortly. It is an important point and one that I personally am very interested in, having been on the Select Committee on Justice and written a report on that very subject.

The most substantive changes in the amendments cover provisions that make clear the ability of the devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation to delegate functions between each other, the extension of schedule 10 marine conservation powers to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and amendments to Northern Irish and Scottish statutory instruments to bring them in line with UK and Welsh SIs under schedule 2. The final amendments are needed to implement the international treaty with the Faroe islands.

Government amendment 36 includes a permissive extent clause that will allow the UK Government to legislate for the Crown dependencies to ensure compliance with our international obligations. That follows a great deal of discussion with the Crown dependencies and I recognise that they take their international obligations seriously. This is a subject I personally have long been very interested in and I have discussed the matter with the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), as well as other Members across the House.

I reassure Members and, indeed, the Crown dependencies, that activation of the permissive extent clause would only ever be used as a last resort and I am looking forward to continuing discussions with the Crown dependencies on that in the next few days and weeks.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I would be delighted to give way to my former Chair.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend does know this, because she was a great servant of the Justice Committee when she was a member: it is not just a question of continuing discussions. As things stand, the Governments and legislatures of both Jersey and Guernsey object. It is not just that they do not think a permissive extent clause is necessary; they object to its inclusion in the Bill. It is truly unprecedented for the Government to insist upon a permissive extent clause without the agreement of the relevant Crown dependencies. Why, even in an emergency, go down this rather provocative step? Why not wait until such time as an emergency arises and let them legislate, as they have indicated they would?

[Victoria Prentis]

I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Justice Committee, on which I was very proud to serve for so many years. He and I have discussed this very issue before. The Government feel that it is important, given that these are significant matters of international law, that we retain the ability to legislate for the Crown dependencies if they do not show the inclination to do so when needed. We very much doubt that this will be necessary. I am sorry that they are upset by this stand, but I do feel that it is the right thing to do in the circumstances at the moment.

Government amendment 55 repeals provisions of retained EU law concerned with the catching of cod in the North sea, which, as drafted, do not achieve what they were put in place to do.

Seafish is a fantastic UK-wide organisation that promotes the efficiency of the UK seafood industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point.

Is there not a further difficulty in that the Crown dependencies have jurisdiction over their territorial waters, so for us to legislate unilaterally for something that they have indicated since the summer that they do not wish us to do would be a most dangerous and, frankly, entirely novel precedent? It is difficult to see how that could ever by justified.

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience of Government is that there are issues that sometimes just dot around the civil service waiting for a Minister who is prepared to pick them up and give them a go. This issue is not new. I know that the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), faced a similar dilemma and reached a very different conclusion. I strongly suspect that this has been slipped in at the last minute because officials somewhere wanted to advance it. The Minister should have resisted this. I say to her gently that this will not just be nodded through when the Bill gets to the other place. It will require and get more substantial scrutiny there.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who spoke for the Scottish nationalists, said at the start of her speech, there is a lot of uncertainty around the fishing industry at the moment, and that uncertainty is very damaging. It is worth reminding the House that the reason for that uncertainty was the decision by the former Prime Minister, and the current Prime Minister, to enter into a withdrawal agreement that put an agreement on fishing into the political declaration. When that decision was made by the former Prime Minister, I remember that the hon. Members for South East Cornwall and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and others, were rather unhappy about it, as was I, and we are now reaping the whirlwind of that somewhat ill-advised decision.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a historic moment for our country because, as an island nation, getting back control of our waters is so crucial. I enjoyed the spat between Scottish Members, because that brings the Chamber alive, and I felt the arguments for and against what is happening on this particular matter. As far as I am concerned, however, this Bill and its Report stage are to be welcomed absolutely.

[Sir Robert Neill]

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. and old Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I think we can say that literally, being much of an age. He and I have consistently disagreed about Brexit, but we still remain friends for all that. For those of us who were staunch remainers, the common fisheries policy was about the most difficult aspect of our EU membership to defend. That is one part of our arrangements in departing that I do not regret, and I do not think that many other people will either. This is a good Bill and a necessary Bill to put matters on a proper footing going forward.

Bromley and Chislehurst is not particularly noted for its fishing industry, although I do use this opportunity to welcome and give every good wish to the establishment by local businesspeople of the excellent Fish Union Chislehurst, which will provide a direct link from the catchers to the streets of Royal Parade in Chislehurst. It is a great initiative and I am delighted that they are doing it.

In fact, as might not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to talk about a legal point instead, and that brings me to Government amendment 36. I listened with care to my hon. Friend the Minister in her exchanges with me and with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). My hon. Friend is a very good Minister, she is a very good lawyer, and she was in the past a very distinguished member of the Justice Committee, all of which, I hope, will lead her to pause and take stock as to the wisdom of inserting a PEC—a permissive extent clause—at this late stage of the Bill. In effect, it seeks to give the Government the power to legislate, in certain matters, for the Crown dependencies.

There is a long-standing constitutional convention, as my hon. Friend will know from her time on the Select Committee, from our report in March 2017 on the implications of Brexit on the Crown dependencies, and from our visits to the Crown dependencies, that the normal process is that we legislate for the Crown dependencies only with their consent. They are not former colonies or British territories, and they are not part of the United Kingdom in the strict sense. They are possessions of Her Majesty the Queen, by right of her position as successor to the Duchy of Normandy. That is why they do not have representation here. Where necessary, their legislative dealings with the UK Government are dealt with historically through the Privy Council, and are now safeguarded by the Ministry of Justice via the person of the Lord Chancellor. So their constitutional position is different.

The Government have recognised that in the past, for example in tax transparency legislation, where this House accepted that although we have the power to legislate for overseas territories, we do not constitutionally have the power to legislate for the Crown dependencies in a like manner. I do not understand why the Government are adopting a different stance on this, compared with the one they took on the equally desirable legislation on tax transparency.

The problem is this: of the Crown dependencies, the Isle of Man has consented. Well and good—there is nothing wrong with a permissive extent clause that involves the Isle of Man. However, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, which involves three separate jurisdictions—Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, all of which have their own legislative integrity—and the island of Jersey, have declined to agree to the PEC. Indeed, there were discussions going back to July and they politely said, “No, thank you. We have a good relationship with our neighbours in France”—that is where the vast bulk of their catch lands—“and if we have difficulties we have our own legislative processes, and we will work and legislate for ourselves in an emergency if need be.” So I do not see the constitutional justification for the Government taking these powers.

I had a concern—the Minister will know this—about our taking what many of us thought to be pre-emptive powers in the UK internal markets Bill. In the end that was described as a “break glass in emergency” clause. I do not know whether this is supposed to be a “break glass in emergency” clause, but it seems to suggest the possibility of the UK Government trespassing on the constitutional integrity of the Crown dependencies, in furtherance of a potential dispute between the UK Government and the Crown dependencies.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there is no provision for consultation of any sort in the Bill? This is something that could be done unilaterally. Is that really the way we should be gearing our relationship with the Channel Islands?

[Sir Robert Neill]

The short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman is right. It is not the right way to do this and we should think again. That is why I ask the Minister to reflect between now and the Bill going back to the other place. In the end we came to a pragmatic compromise on the UK internal markets Bill, and we set in place certain processes, triggers and thresholds for the exercise of that power, should it be needed in emergencies. I urge the Government, between now and the Bill returning to the other place, to think hard about doing something similar, so that we do not get into a situation where our friends in the Crown dependencies find themselves obliged perhaps to seek legal redress against our own Government and, if need be, to invoke their internal arrangements in relation to a legislative referral procedure. As the Minister knows, that can be embarked on and is not the ideal way to deal with this matter.

The concern is simply that the principle of consent is thoroughly enshrined in our relationship with the Crown dependencies. The Government have always sought to adhere to that, and the Minister and I know that we have always advocated that in this House. I do not yet see the grounds for introducing this provision, other than the possibility that it might be needed at some point—again, that sounds familiar in respect of the UK internal markets Bill. Let us find another solution in much the same way, where we consult with the Crown dependencies.

Without any consultation, it seems a needless provocation to attempt to place in the Bill, at a late stage, a provision that I hope will never be needed, but that goes against the express wishes of the legislatures of two parts of the British family. One of those legislatures had a general election only last week, and it now has a new legislature and set of Ministers, with a mandate to maintain their constitutional position. I urge the Minister to use her good influence and wise lawyerly skills to cause her colleagues to draw back a little, put some safeguards in the measure, continue talking to our friends in the Crown dependencies and find a means of accommodating the legitimate concerns of both sides, without taking what might be termed a draconian step.

[Victoria Prentis]

Well, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), told us to eat more fish. That should not be difficult with Arbroath smokies, Strangford prawns and buying local in Totnes. Even Wokingham is very keen to eat lots and lots more British fish. Chislehurst has a fish union and Holyhead is willing to sell it shellfish—it’ll be great.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said that she was concerned that we would not actually act—that we would just consult. I reassure her that consulting is a precursor to action. We will consult on the economic link for four weeks. We will announce our new policy by the end of the year. We will give the industry a year to adapt and the changes will come in in 2022.

The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who is no longer in his place, was concerned about coastal communities. I can tell him that we have invested £228 million through the coastal communities fund, supporting projects that should create 20,000 new jobs very shortly.

Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Many of the amendments to which she takes objection are at the behest of the Scottish Government. I say politely that new clause 3 is really not necessary. Seafish already publishes the information that is sought within it and lays its annual reports and accounts before this Parliament, and that information is widely available.

There were some emotional speeches, and rightly so, including from my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has spent 40 years campaigning for this historic moment, but is she stuck in the past? She is not. Yesterday, she launched an electric boat, which shows that there is a future for this exciting industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) again spoke with experience and passion. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) had a horrible experience during the debate and we send our love to her. Her defence of fishing made her grandfather and Yorkshire proud. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) also spoke emotionally. I encourage him to join in with our consultation process thoroughly.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) that clause 6(2)(c) gives him the flexibility that he seeks and I am looking forward to going fishing with him soon—if he ever asks me. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) stood up very, very soundly for the Scottish fishing industry and reminded us carefully that the Scottish Parliament has consented to this legislation. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised the very serious matter of the case that happened off Shetland. The correspondence to which he referred is part of the MCA correspondence, so I am not able to give him that, but what I would like to offer is to arrange a meeting between him, the MCA and the DFT to discuss this very important matter.

On the speech by hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), DAERA asked for wider powers on conservation beyond the scope of this Bill. We are exploring the options for other appropriate routes if DAERA wants to continue to take that forward in the future—I am happy to take this offline with her. The hon. Members for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith) were concerned about the speed of lorry movements with fish and seafish on them. Seafood and day-old chicks do need priority care and access through the short straits and that is something that the Government recognise.

It was lovely to hear from the Cornish fishwife, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who gave us some real-life experience and made important points about labelling. I would not mind going on the trawler vessel with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) if he were to ask me. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) supported marine protected areas and I was glad that I could answer his concerns on super-trawlers. To my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I can say that the REAF report contains some interesting ideas that the Government will consider as part of our ongoing work on inshore fisheries. 

At the end of this year, foreign vessels will not be able to pulse trawl.

On the PEC, I will continue to consult with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and with the Lord Chancellor, to whom I have also spoken on this issue. I reassure the House that I will speak again to those in the Crown dependencies who are concerned by this step, which is not one I take at all lightly, but I have been persuaded that there is no other option. We are not intending to use the provision, but I think it is correct to have it in the Bill.

I thank all those who have scrutinised the Bill at both ends of this place. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Gardiner. May his lines always be tight. Before today, we had spent 51 hours debating just this second version of the Bill, so I think it is fair to say that it has been well and thoroughly scrutinised. Thanks are also due to Lucy Cheeseman and Giulia Grierson, who are in the Box tonight, to parliamentary counsel, DEFRA officials and, indeed, all those from the devolved Administrations who have worked so hard on this Bill.

The Bill sets in stone our commitment to improving the health of our seas. It gives our fishermen the better future they need, and it is an opportunity to seize a once-in-a-generation chance to take back control of our natural resources and make sure we pass on healthier seas, which are abundant with life. The Fisheries Bill gives us the power we need to protect our fish stocks and help our seafood sector. It sets a gold standard for sustainability, and it allows us to bring fishing home. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated

(1) No prohibition, restriction or obligation relating to sea fishing imposed by any enactment applies to—

(a) anything done or not done by or in relation to a foreign fishing boat at a time at which the fishing boat is in waters lying within the Special Area and is exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated, or

(b) anything done or not done in relation to sea fish that were caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area at a time at which the fishing boat was exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated.

(2) For the purposes of this section a foreign fishing boat is “exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated” if—

(a) there is in force a licence issued by or on behalf of the Government of the Faroe Islands authorising it to fish in waters lying (to any extent) within the Special Area, and

(b) the fishing boat is not on a list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this subsection.

(3) In this section—

(a) “enactment” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and includes an enactment contained in or made under this Act;

(b) “the Special Area” means the Special Area, as defined in Article 4 of, and Schedule C to, the Faroe Islands Treaty;

(c) “the Faroe Islands Treaty” means the agreement between—

(i) the Government of the United Kingdom, and

(ii) the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Government of the Faroe Islands,

relating to the maritime delimitation in the area between the Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom, entered into on 18 May 1999.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This new clause exempts foreign fishing boats from UK regulation where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. It also gives the Scottish Ministers power to remove this exemption from particular foreign fishing boats by putting them on a published list. These changes are in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Interpretation of Welsh legislation

(1) In the Interpretation Act 1978, section 23B (application of Interpretation Act 1978 to Welsh legislation), as substituted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4), is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In subsection (6), for “and “Wales”” substitute “, “Welsh zone” and (subject to subsection (7)) “Wales””.

(3) After subsection (6) insert—

“(7) In relation to a provision that—

(a) relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, and

(b) is contained in an instrument made after section43 of the Fisheries Act 2020 comes into force,

“Wales” includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea.”

(4) The Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (8).

(5) In section 1(3)(d) (duty to keep accessibility of Welsh law under review)—

(a) in the English language text, omit “applies in relation to Wales and relates to subject matter which”;

(b) in the Welsh language text, omit “y mae’n gymwys o ran Cymru ac y mae’n ymwneud â phwnc”.

(6) In section 3 (legislation to which Part 2 of the Act applies), after subsection (3)—

(a) in the English language text, insert—

“(4) In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health and is made after section 45 of the Fisheries Act 2020 (c. 00) comes into force, the reference in subsection (2)(b)(iii) to Wales includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;

(b) in the Welsh language text, insert—

“(4) Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod ac a wneir ar ôl i adran 45 o Ddeddf Pysgodfeydd 2020 (p. 00) ddod i rym, mae’r cyfeiriad yn is-adran (2)(b)(iii) at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.”

(7) After section 40—

(a) in the English language text insert—

“40A Application of this Part in relation to the Welsh zone

In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, references in this Part to Wales include the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;

(b) in the Welsh language text insert—

“40A Cymhwyso’r Rhan hon mewn perthynas â pharth Cymru

Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod, mae cyfeiriadau yn y Rhan hon at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.””

(8) In Schedule 1, in the Table—

(a) in the English language text, after the entry for “Welsh tribunal (tribiwnlys Cymreig)” insert—

Environment Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bill provides for us to do precisely that by setting targets for PM 2.5. We will want to consult and engage people on exactly what that target should be. It is worth noting that the World Health Organisation has commended this Government’s air quality strategy, saying that it is an example for the rest of the world to follow.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, and I welcome the Bill because it is a valuable step forward, but does he recognise that particulate pollution is a very real cause for concern, not just in inner cities but in suburban areas such as mine? Will he look at why we cannot use this Bill as an opportunity to advance rapidly towards WHO standards?

[George Eustice]

I simply say to my hon. Friend that the Bill gives us the powers to set precisely those long-term targets and to monitor our progress towards them. It also contains powers, later in the Bill, to improve our ability to manage air quality and support interventions that will enhance air quality.

Environment Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

I agree that it is vital that we protect our green belt and that green belt rules are abided by. The Government are absolutely determined to defend the green belt as part of our environmental policy.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. This is a very welcome Bill, which builds on much good work that the Government have already done. Does she recognise, however, that in suburban parts of London, like hers and mine, there remains a concern about particulate pollution? Will she consider, as the Bill progresses, what more we can do to strengthen the fight against particulate pollution—for example, by seeking to strengthen our commitment by joining the World Health Organisation guidelines on particulate pollution by 2030?

[Theresa Villiers]

My hon. Friend will be aware that clause 2 sets out the ambition to set a legally binding target on fine particulate pollution, responding to exactly the concerns of his constituents—and indeed of mine in Chipping Barnet.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. The Ministry of Defence, in which she served with such distinction, has a suite of new offshore patrol vessels—state-of-the-art fisheries protection vessels—and we are negotiating with both the Treasury and the MOD to ensure that the work of those vessels will be complemented by the aviation and technological capacity that will guarantee that our fishermen are properly protected.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making his case most powerfully. In relation to the backstop, I can confirm to him that those of us who speak to European politicians and diplomats know that they have no desire to see something that gives us a competitive advantage endure in perpetuity. Moreover, European law makes it very clear that the provisions of the treaties do not permit a backstop to be permanent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be perfectly reasonable for us, with the assistance of the Attorney General, to seek further and better clarification of the definition of “temporary” in the protocol, which could be sensibly done, to reassure Members such as those from Northern Ireland who have legitimate but answerable concerns?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate, which is important and, to some degree, painful for me, because I voted to remain in the European Union in the 1975 referendum and in 2016. I have not changed my view. My constituency voted to remain, but this was a national poll, and I respect it. My duty, as I see it, is therefore to ensure that we leave the European Union but do so in a way that, as has been observed by many Members, recognises the narrowness of the result—something that works for those who voted to remain as well as those who voted to leave, and for the majority of my constituents. The margin therefore, as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs observed, is not a mandate for a hard Brexit. It is, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), not a mandate for some Teflon-coated departure from the EU. I suggest to the House that it is a mandate for a managed, orderly and considered withdrawal that keeps close and important ties in our economic interests.

My manifesto, my personal message to my electors, was that I would respect the outcome of the referendum, but would do so in a way that protected their jobs, businesses and livelihoods. I will support the Prime Minister’s deal for that very reason. It is the best opportunity and the best alternative we have to deliver that. No one else has put a viable alternative plan on the table. With every respect to Opposition Members, the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition will provoke a general election and find anything even remotely better is risible to the point of being beyond parody. We have to get on with this deal.

For me, that means in particular dealing with arrangements for the financial services sector, which is critical to my economy. It is critical to the economy of the whole of the UK. About 11% of the economy is generated from financial services alone. We are an 80% services economy. We must get this right. Some 36% of my constituents work in financial and professional services. The total financial services sector contributes some £72 billion in tax revenue. Everyone I speak to in that sector—since I have been in this House, I have worked closely with the City of London, City UK and others—says to me, “We would have preferred to have remained, but with a transition period, above all, we can manage it.” Everyone in financial services, everyone in the whole of the services sector and beyond whom I speak to says, “The key thing is we must have transition. We cannot have a crash-out.” With nothing else on the table, this deal is the only appropriate way of avoiding that crash-out. It gives us time to negotiate the future arrangement. That is the really important thing: not just that we withdraw in an orderly fashion, but that we then have time to develop the key future relationship with our EU friends and neighbours, who are always going to remain very significant trading partners for us.

World trading patterns may well change and other parts of the world may become more significant, but the EU will always remain a very, very important partner for us. The truth is that trade deals elsewhere, as we all know, take time to develop. That is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) observed, even with America and the EU, who are willing partners, never mind in other cases. Some emerging economies—India, China and others—have been particularly resistant to the liberalisation of their markets in services. Having a transitional period is therefore absolutely vital. That involves compromise. I have some issues about the backstop, but I think it is workable, as I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State. There are means whereby we could seek future clarification on the legal definition of “temporary” within the protocol. As has been observed, compromise is not a bad thing in politics. In fact, we should be positively saying more often that compromise is a mature thing. It is a mark of mature politics and that is what the Prime Minister has sought to achieve.

Throughout my constituency, people come up to me and say the deal is not everything they wanted, whichever side they were on, but it keeps the show on the road in terms of the economy. They say that it enables them to develop our new relationship in a sensible way. The Prime Minister deserves credit for working hard to try to get it through. They say, “Do your best to back her.” That is what I will seek to do.

If this deal were to fail, the worst possible result would be to leave without a deal. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who I am delighted to see in his place, is right to observe that were that to be the case, it is important that this House and Parliament be active participants in deciding the way in which we go forward. Even better would be to remove that uncertainty for businesses—one constituent of mine says that that is pressing in terms of his own firm’s viability—at the earliest opportunity, vote for the deal and then get to work moving forward. The onus is on this House. If we fail in that regard, all other options perhaps do have to be considered, and we might have to go back and seek the advice of our electors. I do not want to do that, because that would be a failure of maturity and judgment in this House. Taking back control means us stepping up to the mark and taking a decision. In my book, that means supporting the Prime Minister’s deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

Remain!

[Greg Clark]

He campaigned to remain in the European Union—I was never under any misapprehension about that—but he advocated a managed, considered and orderly approach. He stated in his election address in Bromley and Chislehurst that that was the approach he would take, and I think he has delivered on that commitment during this Parliament. He has also pursued his commitment to achieve a deal that protects jobs, businesses and livelihoods.

[Robert Neill]

I campaigned to remain, as my right hon. Friend did. He may recall that I have referred to the importance of a managed no deal for a particular business in my constituency. He may be interested to know that since the debate in which I spoke about that, I have had an email from the managing director, who said that with a managed deal—the Prime Minister’s deal—his business is survivable. In the event of no deal, he says, it will downsize 75%, close or leave the UK. That is what is at stake.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the stakes. This is a matter that engages all Members of Parliament. We all have a responsibility to our constituents now and for the future, and every one of us will need to make an individual decision that reflects that.

I want to mention a few colleagues, and I am sorry not to be able to do justice to all the contributions that have been made; there were more than 50 of them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said—wrongly, I think—that it was too late to engage across parties and across Parliament. If I have misrepresented her, I would be delighted to hear it; I was going to admonish her gently for saying that. If we believe, as I do, that this is the most important decision that this Parliament will take, it is never too late to establish that agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The Church Commissioners have applied an ethical investment strategy to all their investments. As a result, the Church has withdrawn from investment in tar sands and other polluting forms of fossil fuel. The Church believes you must practise what you preach. In talking to the Government, it is itself demonstrating its commitment to tackle climate change.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

8. Whether the Church of England plans to introduce an annual national memorial service to honour British civilians killed during the second world war.

[Mrs Spelman]

As we approach Remembrance Sunday, this is an excellent time to remind hon. Members that during the remembrance service on Sunday, which we will no doubt all attend, there is a prayer that specifically relates to the suffering of civilians in the war. Coventry Cathedral is a national entity for recognising the suffering and loss of civilians, and other churches around the land recognise the loss particularly of civilians during the second world war.

[Robert Neill]

My constituent George Taylor, who attends the Church of the Annunciation in Chislehurst, lost his mother and his young brother among 160 people killed when a V2 bomb fell on a shop in south-east London. It is perfectly right that we remember civilians on Remembrance Day, but equally, we want a special day to remember our armed forces and their dedication in all wars. Could we consider putting the work being done in individual churches and with the prayer on a more systematic basis, and could we also consider some further physical memorial in which the Church might play a part?

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Often those dogs go on to have terrible health conditions, which then cost the loving owner a fortune in vets’ fees, as they have to mitigate some of those terrible breeding practices that the poor pup suffered in its early life.

Obviously, the breeding and sale of puppies and other animals provides a living, and in some cases a good living. The vast majority of breeders have chosen that as a way of life because they love animals and love the joy that they can bring to the families to whom they go. Many are very particular about ensuring that their puppies go to a good and loving home. I do not want to see the lives of those breeders made more difficult by any change in the law. None the less, I am sure that they would be the first to agree that we must ensure that the law is strong enough to be able to stamp out the minority of breeders in the country who do not share their high standards of care.

My constituents are particularly concerned when they see puppies for sale in pet shops without their mothers present. I understand that that practice persists in a very small minority of pet shops in the UK—about 2% according to Pet Care Trust. None the less, I agree with my constituents that that practice should be ended completely. It has been pointed out that some councils have successfully eradicated this practice in their areas through their licensing requirements, but, like buying a car, buying a pet involves the kind of purchase that people are prepared to go further afield to make. Indeed, my dog Leo is an Essex boy, and we travelled all the way there to adopt him. Although such actions are welcome, they mean little if all the surrounding councils do not feel able to follow suit. I therefore think it is worth looking at what more can be done at a central Government level to spread best practice across the country.

I do not know what the right balance is in securing regulations that are enforceable and effective but that do not represent an onerous duty on local authorities or other agencies or place unnecessary restrictions on the many good, responsible and caring breeders, but it is clear that we are not striking that balance at the moment.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am very interested in the hon. Lady’s point about regulation. Although there is a role for central Government, does she agree that much more can be done by organisations such as the Local Government Association? The local government sector can collaborate to spread around best practice, which some councils have and others do not. As she rightly observes, this is an issue that runs across the country and it is important that we have the best possible knowledge for sometimes quite hard-pressed local authority enforcement arms.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right and has some expertise in this area. There are councils that have great best practice and it is important that we disseminate and share that.

The other thing I want to mention is public awareness. Often the public are not aware that these issues exist and think when they buy a kitten or puppy, wherever they buy it from, that it will have been taken care of, nurtured and loved in the right way. We need the public to be made more aware of the welfare standards and of the legislation, as that would mean that they could have confidence in the system and could demand that puppies were bred in a fair and just way.

I wholeheartedly support the calls in the motion for a review of the legislation on breeding and sale. I am pleased that my Front-Bench colleagues are committed to undertaking such a review if we form the next Government, but given that the election is eight months away and countless puppies and kittens will be born and sold between now and then, I hope that the Government will listen to the cross-party calls we have heard today and to the thousands of people who signed the petition and will announce that they will instigate a review forthwith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I was going to comment on later. The Minister kindly afforded a meeting to me and colleagues, as well as animal welfare groups, to discuss that very issue. We pressed him on the matter; he is clearly concerned about it and the officials were very much on the case. I hope he can give us an update today. DEFRA clearly recognises that there is a problem and has been working on it and making progress, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that that work will continue.

The argument for a ban on pet shop sales was strongly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, and I am sure the Minister will respond to that case, but will he also comment on enforcement by local authorities? The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) said that her local authority is very good, but it will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether enforcement is consistent across the piece—it seems to have been suggested that some local authorities are better than others—and what DEFRA and DCLG are doing to make it more consistent. Could the information supplied to breeders be made clearer?

Several of the briefings I received mentioned the Welsh draft breeding regulations. Does DEFRA regard those as helpful? Does it intend to replicate them, or will the Department wait to see whether they are passed in Wales? How helpful will microchipping be? Concern about the database has been registered. Will the Minister respond to questions about unscrupulous or even illegal advertising of puppies and kittens? I understand that DEFRA supported the voluntary scheme from the Pet Advertising Advisory Group; does the Department intend to go further and make that a regulatory requirement?

Finally in this section of my speech, I wanted to ask about illegal imports and the efforts of DEFRA and the Home Office in that regard.

[Robert Neill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am very happy to give way to another West Ham United supporter. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

[Robert Neill]

I am delighted that we have three in one debate. May I reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point about illegal imports? The problem has affected constituents and indeed a member of my family, who rescued a dog that had been illegally imported. This is a real problem, and there is concern that even well-intentioned local authorities cannot cope with the abuse in their enforcement. We need to tackle it at national level.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well. I hope the Minister will comment in his closing remarks.

Colleagues scoff about the number of West Ham United supporters who are in the Chamber today. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire is also a West Ham supporter, as is the hon. Gentleman. We are only missing my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), or we would all be here this afternoon.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) mentioned the EFRA Committee report published in February 2013. Recommendations 19, 20 and 21 covered questions of the number of litters, enforcement, internet sales and illegal adverts. Those matters continue to be raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

On delays to benefits payments, the DWP’s performance has improved: 90% of payments are now made within the time scale set out. Benefits matters are for the DWP. My Department deals with food, and I am happy to talk about food prices and food inflation, but I will not interfere in benefits policy.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

9. Whether his Department has any plans to strengthen the enforcement provisions of the 2010 environmental permitting regulations.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

There are no current proposals to alter the enforcement provisions of the 2010 environmental permitting regulations. The 2010 regulations and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 together provide a range of enforcement powers at regulated and illegal sites. I would consider the case for strengthening these or other regulatory provisions if there is evidence that exercising them is proving insufficient in preventing harm to health and the environment.

[Robert Neill]

If the Minister wants evidence, would he like to look at the waste-for-fuel site in my constituency, which has so far had 15 fires in the past two years, at a cost of £568,000 to the fire service and 1,900 hours of firefighters’ time—more than the clear-up cost of removing this rogue operator—and where repeated attempts by the Environment Agency to secure an injunction have so far failed? Will he press the agency to honour its commitment to give my constituents the results of toxicity testing on that site?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to pass on that request to the Environment Agency. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have met him and local representatives to consider what is occurring at that site, and subsequently I met the chairman and chief executive of the Environment Agency specifically to talk about how it could intervene earlier on new or untested operators to prevent these vast amounts of material from appearing on sites such as the one in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. As he knows, however, there is an action at the High Court, and there is now a deadline to clear the site by 1 May. The agency will have to respect that in the enforcement action it takes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) to discuss the persistent and serious breaches of control of the Waste4Fuel site on the boundary of our constituencies, which the Environment Agency appears to be unable to cope with?

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the concerns of his constituents about this site. I have looked into the issue, am aware of it and discuss it with the Environment Agency. If he and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington wish to meet me to discuss it, I will be happy to do so.