I have had some criticism for writing about environmental issues. Looking at the blog  stats you found habitats as uninteresting as the Withdrawal Agreement. The two most commented on recent blogs were the  one on how to have  a more prosperous UK out of the EU, and what laws we should change on exit. A good number of readers are interested in waste and plastics.

This is different to the volume  of emails I get as an MP, where environmental ones greatly exceed Brexit ones. Most of them are copies of lobby group emails which people want to route on.

I will continue to write about a range of relevant topics. Those who are only interested in Brexit will find regular update  posts they can respond to.

Tax is a necessary evil. We need substantial revenues to run a government and to provide decent public services. The UK believes in state payment for most people’s heath care and school education, whilst we need police, armed forces and intelligence services to help keep us safe. We also need to send money to those who cannot earn enough to support themselves and their families to an acceptable standard.

There is a common thread amongst politicians to want to use tax as a means of changing or controlling people’s behaviour. Many favour so called sin taxes, imposing taxes on drinking alcohol, smoking or eating too much sugar, as a means of changing diets, ending smoking and cutting down on alcohol consumption. Government often is pulled both ways with such taxes. They both want high revenues from them to afford public services, and claim to want lower taxes as people cut out the sinful product. This reinforces the idea that taxes are bad news.

There is also common thread of redistribution in tax plans. Many politicians want to tax the rich because they do not want them to be so rich. The problem with this approach is it can act as a disincentive to behaviours which politicians usually claim to back. Taxes on the rich can become taxes on hard work, on saving, on investing, on building a business or on backing a good idea. Taken to excess taxes on the rich drive the seriously rich out of the country, demotivate the not so rich and create an atmosphere hostile to enterprise.

The UK currently has a very complex tax system, and high rates on various conducts. There is a high rate of tax on those who dare to invest in residential property, high taxes on motorists, on people who earn higher salaries and on buying a home in expensive parts of the country.

We need a tax simplification, and a move to lower rates. Working hard or buying a home should not be seen as a sin that needs curbing but as a free choice the government is relaxed about. People who set up businesses, take risks and create jobs should be particularly welcome, not objects of suspicion by the tax authorities.

This is why I continue to press government to have an early economy boosting budget that includes tax cuts. Income tax, Stamp Duty , VED and VAT cuts are much needed to boost our homes market, car market and to leave  people more of their own money to spend.

David Attenborough’s Blue Planet II has done much to focus public attention on the birds, sea mammals and turtles which die every year from eating and getting tangled in plastic waste. I have received numerous emails about it so will share here my reply to the campaign email.

More than eight million tonnes of plastic enter the world’s seas each year. For sea birds and larger marine creatures, the danger comes from being entangled in plastic bags and other debris, or mistaking plastic for food. Larger pieces of plastic can also damage the digestive system of animals and can be potentially fatal.

In the UK alone, during its recent Great British Beach Clean Up, the Marine Conservation Society found 718 pieces of litter for every 100 metre stretch of beach surveyed, and of this rubbish from food and drink made up at least one fifth.

If I buy a food product in plastic packaging because it is a fluid which needs containment it does not end up in the oceans. I dispose of it through the local Council who get it recycled, or burned for energy from waste, or dumped to landfill. The plastic in the oceans comes from people deliberately discarding plastic waste as litter.

The Government recognises the danger that plastic waste poses to marine life and has taken significant steps to tackle this by seeking to reduce the amount of plastic packaging people might be able to throw away carelessly. It has introduced a ban on plastic microbeads and taken 9 billion plastic bags out of circulation with the carrier-bag charge. It realises that more needs to be done to protect our environment from the blight of plastic pollution and it has recently launched a consultation around deposit reward and return schemes for plastic bottles and other drinks containers. The Government also plans to ban the sale of plastic straws, stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds.

Responding to the public mood , seven major supermarket chains have announced they will make drastic reductions in plastic use over the next five years. Much current plastic packaging would be replaced with paper and pulp trays and paper bags, which would be recyclable through domestic waste collections or in-store recycling facilities. It can only be a matter of time before other supermarket chains follow suit.

The Government recognises that tackling the use of plastic cannot be done in isolation. It is directing some of its development spending to help developing nations reduce plastic waste, increasing  our own marine protected areas at home, and establishing  new Blue Belt protections in our Overseas Territories.

We need to stress it is not just the responsibility of the Government to care for the environment. We must all do our part by using the litter bins, taking our own reusable bags to the shops and reducing the use of throwaway plastic items.

The challenge is to stop people on boats treating the seas as their waste bin and to stop people on land throwing plastic away where it can be caught by the wind or a river and sent to the ocean. We also wish to stop people littering the countryside, so waste does not reach the oceans or pollute areas where wildlife lives.

It is up to all of us to encourage and persuade our friends and family to avoid littering and to report or discourage others we see who are throwing litter away carelessly. We also have to work internationally on the problem as most of the litter in the oceans does not come from the UK.

Parliament must play its part to contribute towards reducing plastic waste.
Parliament recently announced a comprehensive range of steps to drastically reduce its consumption of single-use plastics this year by switching non-recyclable disposal items such as take-away boxes, cups and soup containers to sustainably sourced, plant-based and certified compostable alternatives. Bottled water in plastic bottles will also no longer be on sale in Parliament, eliminating 120,000 plastic bottles annually.

What do you think we should all do to curb the plastic threat to the seas?

Some have doubts we will leave the EU on the date stated by the PM.

There are many good reasons why he has to stick to it.

1. The EU has made clear it will not re open the Withdrawal Agreement and offer  the 21 to 45 months delay in leaving without the Irish backstop.

2. The EU is not offering talks on delay in exit without the Withdrawal Treaty.

3. A significant number of Conservative MPs would not vote for the Withdrawal Treaty without the backstop as it contains many other undesirable features.

4. Labour shows no wish to go into coalition with pro EU Conservative Ministers should the government want to change its mind on this central policy, to get through a Withdrawal Treaty which delays and undermines Brexit.

5 Even this Parliament would not vote to revoke Article 50 and then repeal the leaving legislation, recognising that would be a provocation too far of the majority who want Brexit.

The best course remains for the UK to leave on 31 October as promised, whilst offering comprehensive free trade talks and a no tariffs exit on that date.

Some write to me asking that we do more to save habitats and help species survive. As an animal lover I am all in favour of doing what we can to help, and certainly avoiding doing harm to the other species we share the planet with.

We need to understand that to succeed a species need protection from predators and a decent food supply. Species are adaptable, and will respond to human changes in the landscape. We should not seek to fossilise our lives for fear of disrupting the balances, but make sure as we change our lives there are answers for the species around us. Nor should we think that mankind is all powerful and is in some unique position, able to judge the struggle for life and determine all  the winners and losers under the process of natural selection.

Some species thrive because human conduct changes. Just look at the success of seagulls as birds now often living well away from the coast. Many of them have traded the hard work and uncertainty of fishing offshore for the easier pickings of a local tip, park or source of food from human contact. Urban foxes know the way to earn a living around the dustbins and discards of human society. Birds flourish in our gardens where many people offer them special meals, and where the human hunter/predator has been replaced by the bird watcher and lover.

Anyone worried about various insects or small mammals can create the kind of habitat they like in their own gardens. Many do. The advance of urban development will remove some natural habitats on the way, but there remains plenty of wild areas, woodlands and parklands where animals can thrive. Some interventions to protect a species requires tough action to reduce or harm a predator.

There is no golden age of animals to restore or some pre ordained balance to be struck. There used to be many more horses because people reared and fed them so they could work for the people who provided for them. Various species from cats and dogs to horses and farm animals have adapted to live  alongside humans, whilst more  so called wild species are now at one remove adapting to life close to people. Many summer cafes are much attended by small birds with a love of cake.

One of the big wins from leaving will be regaining control of our fishing grounds and seas around us. The Common Fishing Policy has dragged us from net exporter to net importer of fish. It has seen considerable damage done to our fishery by overfishing, with much of the wealth of our seas taken from us to sell elsewhere. The damage has been intensified by the long period when the CFP forced fishermen to throw dead fish back into the sea, increasing the damage done without producing revenue for the industry and food for the consumer.

A domestic fishing policy must abandon the discards policy and insist on all fish caught being landed and sold. There will need to  be controls on how much fish can be taken, with species analysis. There are various systems for allowing rewards for effort and regulating days at sea to ensure some sensible control over the fishery, to allow husbanding of fish stocks. The aim of the policy is to catch fewer fish, and land more fish in the UK from UK vessels.

Regaining control of our fishery will also allow us to invest in a  range of fish processing industries close to the ports, to add value and create more jobs. It will be one of the big wins from Brexit to give a fishing policy kinder to our fish and our fishermen and women. We can restore our fisheries whilst enjoying more economic benefit from them. Their sacrifice to get us into the EEC was a disgrace, and their exploitation  by the EU gas been environmentally and economically damaging.

 

The agricultural lobbyists are worried that leaving the EU will mean they can  no longer recruit plenty of low wage labour from the continent to carry out tasks like fruit picking and vegetable harvesting by hand. The government will continue seasonal workers schemes and will make available a sensible number of labour permits. It should also promote productivity enhancing investment in  technology.

There are now various systems to allow mechanised harvesting of everything from vegetables to fruit. Intelligent tractors and farm drones are able to plough, sow, spray and perform many other chores. The farmer will increasingly become the controller of complex systems of AI. He or she from the office will have detailed reports on the state of the crop, the diary for tending and harvesting and details of any problems. He or she will instruct the tractors, drones and other equipment to carry out the work needed at each stage of the development of the crop.

Some of the equipment will be large and expensive. A further move to larger farms would expedite this, but smaller farms can come together with rental agreements or with co-operative approaches, sharing the equipment needed to service their fields. UK farming is often more advanced and better capitalised than many continental farms, where small units lacking in capital characterise big areas. Here in the UK the very high cost of farmland means many farmers are tenants or employee managers. We need to find more ways of incentivising owners of land to work with farmers to put in the capital required.

As an ageing population of tenant farmers retires there is more scope to look at farm amalgamation and at new contract arrangements for younger farmers who cannot afford to buy land. Technology will be a great driver of new ways of farming, and will boost agricultural productivity. Leasing, hiring, and co-operating all offer options for new farmers to earn a good  living alongside farm owners who want to make a decent return.

The UK is a large net importer of food from the rest of the EU as we have lost substantial market share in temperate foods since joining the EEC. and losing tariff protection. If on exit  the EU imposes their high external tariffs on UK food  we should impose selective tariffs on products where we can switch to more home consumption of our own product. We are likely to eat more  home produced lamb and less imported  beef if the EU opts for the tariff route. We should remove all tariffs on things we cannot produce for ourselves.

All the time we have been in the EU the Common Agriculture Policy has kept the UK under controls which have not suited us. Market share has fallen. We have seen more and more temperate food brought in from the continent, reducing our home market share. Food miles have increased, our roads have been clogged with more foreign trucks travelling longer distances with food imports.

Much of our salad needs and flowers now come in from the Netherlands. Many of our vegetables come in from Spain. Large amounts of dairy produce come from France. Beef comes in from several countries, and pork arrives especially from Denmark. Many of these items are things we could grow or rear for ourselves. The Netherlands has no climate advantage over us. Low value vegetables should not be cheaper when hauled hundreds of miles from Spain.

Once we are free to set our own tariffs we can remove all tariffs on food we cannot produce for ourselves. There should be  no further need for taxes on  citrus fruits, for example. We may also well decide to have lower average tariffs on temperate food than the EU makes us impose, as we will be levying them on  the EU as well as on the rest of the world.

We will also decide on our own levels of farm subsidy and how it should be allocated. The new UK system should place a premium on increasing our market shares. There should be tax and subsidy inducements to increase output and to mechanise farms. The UK should harness AI and robotics to the cause of farm improvement, building two industries at the same time. Intelligent use of  newly targeted subsidies and sensible tariffs could give us a big boost with more home grown food and more domestic development of the technology a new farm should deploy.

We need more investment in extending the growing seasons for vegetables, fruit and flowers and other market gardening activities. We could grow more with the right glasshouses and polytunnels, just as the Dutch do with similar weather.

 

One of the attempted trick questions in the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave was about deregulation. Which regulations would you repeal, they asked  of the Leave campaign. Presumably they hoped either that the Leave campaigner would be lost for a specific example, or would offer up a popular regulation which the public would not wish to see removed. They underestimated their opponents in this as in other matters.

The truth is there are many laws and regulations that the EU has imposed on us that are either suitable for repeal or for substantial improvement. The UK could start by repealing the damaging fishing regulations which have allowed considerable environmental damage to our fishing grounds whilst also undermining some of our fishing businesses.  We could move on to removing items from VAT or choosing lower rates for others. There is no great support for 5% and 20%  VAT rates on a whole range of green products, nor for the 5% VAT levy on domestic heating fuel. The interventions in our corporate tax code that have lowered our revenues could be reversed. We could do a better job on animal welfare with our own rules.

It is a strange phenomenon that many people will stand for election to the UK Parliament with a wish to become lawmakers, only to decide once they arrive that want many of our laws to be settled in Brussels so they can claim they have no ability to amend or repeal them. The UK Parliament over our years in the EU has been craven in meekly accepting every EU law and regulation, and in avoiding proper debate about it. This has damaged our democracy and widened the gulf between Parliament and people.

The continuing EC court case over VAT on commodity derivatives is a reminder of how the  EU wishes to rewrite our rules against the interests of our businesses. The UK Parliament should decide our VAT law and it should not be subject to reversal by a European court.

Mr Cameron and Mrs May both kept telling us the UK needed to cut the numbers of migrants coming to the UK. They chose to highlight a net figure, subtracting those who moved abroad from those who arrived. They wanted to get this new figure down to under 100,000. They got nowhere achieving this target.

Some objected to the idea of a net target. Every new migrant arriving needs a home and other support from public services. They often need benefit top up of their incomes. This needs to be done well and generously, and becomes difficult to do to a decent standard when the numbers become very large. The country did not have a sufficient supply of affordable housing, and was short of health and education capacity in the fast growing parts of the UK where many migrants arrived. An elderly couple with their own means moving to Spain for a few years did not compensate for the costs of the new  migrant arriving and needing social housing and other support. Indeed, the absence of the richer UK resident reduced the tax take.

Some said that Mr Cameron and Mrs May were unable to hit their target owing to a sudden surge in inward migration to the Uk from the rest of the EU. It is true there were big movements of people during this period. Many EU citizens were attracted to the UK by the jobs and relatively high wages compared to their home countries. It was also true that the government did not even hit the target for non EU migration which also continued at high levels.

Once out of the EU the government will lose the argument that it cannot hit its target owing to EU membership and freedom of movement. The government will need to set a fair migration policy for the whole world, removing preference for people coming from the continent. The system should mainly be based around an assessment of how many people with what skills levels we need to grant work permits. If people want to come and live here and have the means to support themselves that is no problem. We should also have a humane and proportionate policy towards asylum seekers. Current levels of gross and net migration are too high, damaging our ability to provide good homes and public services for all.