Angela Smith MP

Working hard for you

angela 1 Copy

My Contribution to the Queens speech

The Environment Bill

The Queen’s Speech is under normal circumstances an important feature of our democracy. 


It marks the beginning of a Parliamentary session and sets the agenda for the Government’s legislative programme.   

This speech, however, stands as nothing more than a trailer for the next Tory manifesto.   

It is, in other words, a cheap gimmick which does nothing to enhance the reputation of our democracy 

Worse still, it’s a gimmick deployed in the context of a proposed Brexit deal that will harm our economy and send our country backwards.     

Mr Deputy Speaker, the hard fact is that there is no form of Brexit that will be good for our country. There is no deal that will ever be as good as the one we currently have as member of the European Union. 

And neither a negotiated deal or no deal will help us in dealing with the important issues facing our country, such as the future of our NHS and the climate change crisis.   

On that note, I welcome the inclusion of the long-awaited Environment Bill in the Queens speech 

Certainly, the commitments around improving air quality, restoring and enhancing nature and transforming waste management are long overdue.   

I particularly welcome the proposals on protecting our water resources by securing long-term, resilient water and wastewater services. 

There are, however, many things about this Bill that are worrying.   

Commitments to targets represent progress, for example, but we need to see greater vigour in relation to accountability and reporting mechanisms.   

I am also hugely disappointed at the proposals for the new Office of Environmental Protection.  At present, Government can be taken to the European Court of Justice if it fails to meet its legal obligations to the environment; under the proposals in the Bill, these rights are significantly reduced.   

Judicial Review is not a satisfactory replacement for the rights we currently enjoy. 

This new body also runs the risk of adding more voices to the regulatory field, in a way which might be unhelpful to enforcement of environmental legislation.  We already have the Environment Agency and Natural England; how will these bodies work together?  

But my principal concern, Madam Deputy Speaker, remains the context of Government commitment to tackling the climate emergency.   

This demands action on a range of measures if we are to meet the  2050 target.  

But the detail on achieving this target remains vague and nowhere is this more apparent than in the Government’s approach to water resilience. 

Yes, the Environment Bill promises to improve water quality and yes, it promises to secure long-term resilient water services. 

But I just don’t think the Government is taking the challenge seriously enough.   

Parts of the country are already suffering water stress and in March we received our starkest warning yet of the crisis we face when the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, Sir James Bevan, warned that if we do not act now, within the next 25 years the UK will be facing the jaws of death.     

It seems to me that in the context of climate change and population increases, we face not just a climate emergency but a water emergency, and we must act to tackle both.   

The need for action amounts to much more than building new, hard infrastructure to secure resilience – more reservoirs and water transfer solutions, for example.   

It is also about much more than tackling leakage – important as that is.  

It is also about looking at water in a holistic way and the Environment Bill does not give me confidence that the Government will act comprehensively to tackle the water emergency.  

Its current consultation on reform of building regulations, for example, does nothing to promise much higher water efficiency standards – when will it be understood that tackling climate change is not just about energy efficiency   

There is also no commitment from the Government to tackling the thorny issue of retrofitting homes.  Zero carbon for new homes is important, but we need a roadmap for retrofit, in the context of both energy and water efficiency.   

The Government’s Bill is also vague on other key water related issues.  

Improving water resilience demands, for instance, better management of surface water and yet we still have no statutory compulsion to use sustainable drainage solutions for new developments.  We still have no commitment to developing rainwater or greywater harvesting,  

Steps should be taken as a matter of urgency to ensure that full use is made of rain water and other instruments that help to reduce the average person’s daily water use to 100 litres from the current 140 litres.  

It is the absence of this comprehensive approach to securing water resilience that makes me so sceptical of the measures in the Environment Bill.  

Targets are great, but they need to be backed by concrete commitments and plans to deliver the changes necessary.  Unless we see these commitments materialise, the Environment Bill will not fulfil the Government’s promise that it will stand as world-class legislation but rather it will go down in history as a missed opportunity.  


Domestic Abuse 2nd reading (The Story of Claire Throssell

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who concentrated on and spoke eloquently about the impact of domestic abuse on children. I, too, want to concentrate on putting children first and will focus my remarks on how domestic abuse is considered in the family courts.


Members will recall the debate I secured on this issue in September 2016. In my speech, I referred specifically to a tragedy suffered by my constituent, Claire Throssell, as a way of illustrating as powerfully as I could the need for reform. Claire is with us today, sitting in the Under-Gallery, and I welcome her to the debate. I make no apology for recounting again in this Chamber her account of what happened on that dreadful day when her boys were murdered at the hands of their own father. I only wish the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was in his place to listen.

“It took just 15 minutes on the 22nd October 2014, for my life and heart to be broken completely beyond repair. I had warned those involved with my case that my happy, funny boys would be killed by their own father; I was right.

My boys were both with their father on that October day, and at around 6.30 pm he enticed Paul, nine, and Jack, 12, up to the attic, with the promise of trains and track to build a model railway. When the boys were in the attic, he lit 16 separate fires around the house, which he had barricaded, so my sons could not get out and the firemen could not get in.

Only 15 minutes later…the doorbell rang at my mum’s. (We were staying there temporarily after the separation).

 ‘It’s the boys, they must be early,’ my mum said—but I knew that wasn’t right. The boys would have run into the house and straight into my arms; they always did after a visit to their dad. They were frightened of him—he was a perpetrator of domestic abuse. The statutory agencies involved in our case knew this.

I opened the door. Blue lights were flashing.

‘There's been an incident at your former home; the boys have been involved in a fire…’

Running into the hospital, the first thing I saw was Paul receiving CPR. A doctor, drenched in sweat and exhausted, told me they were withdrawing treatment.

I held Paul in my arms. I begged him to try, to stay, to not leave me.

He looked at me, smiled, and the life left his beautiful blue eyes. His hair was wet with my tears as I kissed his nose. Then Paul, my boy, was taken out of my arms and into another room. There was no further chance of touching him; his little body was now part of a serious crime enquiry.”

I can never read those words or hear them—and I know the Minister feels the same because she has sat with me and listened to Claire—without feeling the enormous loss Claire has suffered. But Claire is brave. She has chosen not to turn in on herself but rather to embrace love as a means of dealing with her tragedy. She has chosen to protect all children, if she possibly can, by making sure that the law is changed.

By that, I mean reform of the family courts. We need access to special measures in those courts to separate survivors from the perpetrators, as well as special protection rooms, entrances and exits, and screens and video links. Clause 53, in part 1, provides for that to apply in the criminal courts, but we need to amend the Bill to ensure that it is extended to the civil and family courts.

Jess Phillips


Does the hon. Lady agree—and Claire’s case speaks to this more loudly than almost any that I have ever heard—that the presumption of access by an abusive parent has to end?

Angela Smith

I completely agree. Indeed, I was about to say exactly that.

We need to extend the ban on cross-examination by perpetrators to the family courts, because the Bill does not do that at present, and, more than anything else, we need to change the culture of the family courts. Claire’s children died after their father won the right to unsupervised contact. The domestic abuse that she had suffered from Darren Sykes was not taken seriously by any agency, or by the courts themselves. It was assumed that his children would be safe in his care. The judge who made that judgment is still practising in the family courts in Barnsley.

The research on this indicates clearly that a man who abuses his wife or his partner is more likely to abuse his children. We, therefore, need to end the assumption of contact when there is a risk to a child from domestic abuse, as called for by Claire and by Women’s Aid, and we need a ban on unsupervised contact when a father is awaiting trial, or is on bail, for domestic abuse offences. The Bill, as it stands, does not deliver such a provision. We also need to ensure that the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill includes coercive control as a source of harm to children. That point has been made by many other Members today.

The Bill needs to be amended along those lines if it is to be fit for purpose. That is the legacy that Claire has campaigned for—a positive legacy that would stand as ​a tribute to her children—and, in the name of Jack and Paul, we have a moral responsibility to secure these protections for all our children. Let us not miss this golden opportunity to secure the change that we need.

I support the Bill, but it can be better, and I hope that the Minister will agree when she sums up the debate.