Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

With all these matters, our goal should be to pursue both prosperity and environmental sustainability at the same time. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point that in taking forward our new regulatory structures to tackle this problem, we must also take into account the impact on developing countries and the interests of people on low incomes.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. As we have heard, fast fashion has a negative impact on our environment. The Secretary of State mentioned environmental sustainability, but she repeatedly voted against measures to protect the environment and tackle climate change. How can we trust her to deliver the transformative change that we need to tackle the climate and environmental emergency we all face? Will she confirm that net zero is still the Government’s target, and if so, will she commit to taking the necessary steps that she previously voted against?

[Theresa Villiers]

I do not know whose voting record the hon. Lady has been looking at, but it does not sound like mine. The Government are doing more on climate change than ever before, and we are one of the first developed countries in the world to commit to the net zero target—not something that our Labour predecessors were prepared to do. I have backed, with enthusiasm, a succession of vital measures taken by the Government—for example, to ensure that more of our electricity is generated by renewables than ever before.

Red Squirrels: Potential Extinction

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), my constituency neighbour, on securing the debate. I am grateful for the excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), and from the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) and for North Wiltshire (James Gray). I thank the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) for giving us the Scottish perspective.

I am not only Labour’s shadow Environment Secretary; I am also hugely privileged to have red squirrels in my garden. When we have visitors from outside the area, I notice that their seeing a red squirrel is an extraordinary experience. My father-in-law had wanted to see a red squirrel all his life, and it was not until he came to stay with us that he managed to do so. There is huge affection, and it demonstrates how rare they are across Britain.

My comments apply mainly to the situation in Cumbria, because I have first-hand experience of it. As we heard, everybody knows just how serious the plight of Britain’s red squirrels is. They are afforded the highest protection possible but are still hugely threatened. Sadly, they have suffered serious population decline despite our best efforts. According to the Cumbria Wildlife Trust, however, evidence is starting to suggest that the red population is being maintained in the north of England through the commitment and dedication of conservation groups. The trust estimates that we have a population of around 15,000 reds in the region.

In Cumbria, we have 14 red squirrel volunteer groups dedicated to preserving our red squirrel population. Without their important work, the long-term survival of the species would not be possible. We have five designated red squirrel reserves across the county. Although the presence of non-native grey squirrels has been the primary cause of the decline in the red population, that is not the end of the story. We heard from hon. Members about the loss of habitat, insensitive forestry operations—for example, the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned the felling and disturbing of dreys, where young squirrel kittens are present during the breeding season—and woodland fragmentation, all of which are factors that add to the pressure.

We heard a lot from hon. Members about the squirrel pox virus, which is carried by grey squirrels, and about how it has the biggest, and potentially catastrophic, impact on red squirrel populations. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central gave a good example of how that can happen. The fact that the pox has nearly a 100% mortality rate in reds shows how devastating it can be. We also know that there are problems with competition with greys for food, and their direct aggression contributes to the decline in red populations.

Volunteers do an excellent job of monitoring the grey squirrel population, and members of the public also help by reporting sightings. As in many villages in Cumbria, our village noticeboard has a sign with the details and telephone number of the local red squirrel warden, whom we call when we see greys—I have done so on a number occasions. The warden then comes out and traps the greys, in order to protect the red squirrel population in the area.

In Cumbria, the National Trust supplements reds’ diets by putting a small quantity of nuts and seeds into special squirrel feeders every morning. In fact, my husband does that in our garden and is very keen on watching and feeding reds. It helps not only monitor the population, but look out for any sick or injured red squirrels, which we can report to the volunteers and squirrel monitors.

The UK Squirrel Accord consists of 32 leading woodland, timber and conservation organisations. As we heard, it was created at the invitation of Prince Charles, with the aim of bringing a concerted and co-ordinated approach to securing the future of red squirrels and woodlands. Habitat loss is a major threat to red populations, so it is essential that protections for the areas that support them are maintained and properly enacted. That would fall under the proposed Office for Environmental Protection post Brexit, so it is absolutely vital that the proposed body and the regulations underpinning it are fit for purpose. A number of stakeholders, and the Opposition, have set out our significant concerns about its lack of independence and the lack of powers to force the Government into action if necessary. As things stand, the OEP would be weaker than our existing arrangements under EU law. Can the Minister tell us when the rest of the environment Bill will be published, and whether it will have rigorous targets for the restoration of Britain’s natural environment?

People rightly think of Cumbria as a very green county, but only 10% of it is covered by woodland. That is 3% lower than the UK average, and well below the EU average of 38%. Protection and enhancement of our woodland is absolutely paramount. The Government have talked a lot about tree planting—we heard from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that it is becoming very challenging for a number of reasons. Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of targeted tree planting in areas where it would benefit our red squirrel populations?

In May the House declared a state of environmental emergency. Many of our animal species are facing extinction, and the UK is set to miss our 2020 biodiversity targets. Tackling climate change and restoring our precious natural habitats go hand in hand. Restoring ecosystems not only makes significant contributions to carbon sequestration, but can safeguard populations of iconic British wildlife species such as the red squirrel.

The hon. Member for Copeland mentioned the Forestry Act 1967, and I support her request to the Minister to ensure that red squirrels are protected as part of the tree felling licensing process. Can the Minister tell us whether the Act could contain a requirement to consider the landscape-level impacts of continuous tree felling licences? Does she agree that a red squirrel conservation strategy is required to help co-ordinate and prioritise their protection and recovery across England? If we want future generations in Britain to be able to enjoy species such as the red squirrel, we need the Government to take serious action to protect and enhance the populations and their precious habitats.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I have had the chance to go to the national forest in my hon. Friend’s constituency on two occasions, and he is a fantastic champion and ambassador for the national forest. We need to take lessons from that and apply them in the northern forest as well, to see what the exciting opportunities can be.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

The role of tree planting in tackling climate change is well documented. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) promised during his leadership bid to plant 100 million trees. The Minister has been mentioning targets, so it is disappointing to read this week that the Government are falling woefully short—by 71%—of their targets. Can the Minister explain why that is? What is he doing about it? How long will it be before we see the Secretary of State’s targets actually met?

[David Rutley]

We have set out a clear target of planting 11 million trees in this Parliament. We are at 3.6 million now and on the trajectory to achieve that target of 11 million, so I assure the hon. Lady that we are working in that direction. We have also set out strong aspirations to increase our woodland cover from 10% to 12% within the 25-year environment plan. We have stretching targets and we will move further forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are now considerably better informed about the asparagus situation.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Last week, the House made history by declaring a climate and environmental emergency. The Labour motion that was passed gives the Government six months to table urgent proposals to restore our natural environment and tackle devastating climate change. That means that the deadline is 1 November. The clock has started to tick. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Cabinet has met to discuss the urgent nature of the motion? When will he publish a timeline that clearly sets out how the UK can reach net zero emissions by at least 2050?

[Michael Gove]

I thank the hon. Lady for underlining the cross-party, consensual approach that the House has taken to dealing with climate change and the broader environmental crisis that we face. The House will be updated not only on progress against the 25-year environment plan and not just in response to the recent report by the Committee on Climate Change on how to reach net zero by 2050, but on a broader suite of measures that every Government Department, from the Treasury to my own, is committed to ensuring that we deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Once we designate the marine conservation zones, which I believe will happen in the next two months, the UK will have comfortably exceeded the 30% target that we have set ourselves for the rest of the world by 2030. One of the key things that I do at G7 Environment and in other forums is speak to other nations to see what more we can do to get more designations. The hon. Gentleman is also right about plastics. He will be aware that at the spring statement the Chancellor specifically referred to the overseas territories. Ascension Island will be moving its entire economic zone to fully protected status, and we will continue to work on the Blue Belt programme, which I think will be one of the greatest achievements of this Government.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

We have heard that the UK is on track to meet only five of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets. This is an environmental and climate emergency. Does the Minister—and the Secretary of State—agree with the around 50 councils and thousands of young people who have declared an environment and climate emergency? Will they today commit to join Labour in declaring a national environment and climate emergency?

[Dr Coffey]

We are already ahead of the game, with a 25-year environment plan published last year, and the strategies and the work that are ongoing. We are making significant improvements in improving our natural environment, and I genuinely hope that the whole House comes together and gets behind the plan to ensure that we leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.

[Sue Hayman]

The question was: will the Minister commit to join me in declaring a national environment and climate emergency? The answer, to be honest, was a bit of a fudge. Labour is going to bring this forward, with or without the Government’s support. Will the Government think again and commit to announcing an environment and climate emergency, and will they commit to meeting the youth strike action for climate representatives?

[Dr Coffey]

DEFRA will account for more than half the achievements under the Paris agreements, so I can assure the hon. Lady that work is very much under way on improving the climate and also the environment. This is about actions rather than words. I pay particular tribute to those who joined the Great British spring clean this weekend and who will do so for the next few weeks. I am very happy to work with young people, as we are with our Year of Green Action 2019. We are already working with the Step Up To Serve brigade, which we will be doing with the National Citizen Service.

Wildlife Crime

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) on securing this important debate. He spoke passionately, and I know that he feels passionately about this issue. I am aware that there is great strength of feeling in Cheshire about it.

We have heard excellent contributions from Members across the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) spoke about the excellent report that the all-party group for animal welfare has produced on sheep worrying. I hope that the Minister will take note of its important recommendations. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the international trade and the importance of working globally. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) raised the issue of bird eggs, which is very important as their theft causes huge damage. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the importance of conservation and raised his particular concerns. It was interesting to hear the response from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who talked about the approach to these issues being taken in Scotland.

People from across the country frequently contact me to tell me their concerns about the appalling wildlife crime in Britain today. Many have been mentioned already, including hunting with dogs, which is clearly a huge concern, hare coursing, badger baiting and raptor persecution. Last year, when I was serving on the Public Bill Committee for the Ivory Act 2018, we heard that the National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 members of staff to cover the entirety of its operations across the UK, and that includes administrative staff as well as enforcement officers. That level of resourcing is a great cause of concern. How can we expect wildlife crime to be tackled in our country if we do not put in place the means by which we can stamp it out? The unit’s financial future has been uncertain for many years, so will the Minister commit to guaranteeing funding for it beyond 2020?

I remind the Minister that, on Second Reading of the Ivory Bill in June last year, the Secretary of State said that, by October 2018

“we will be looking not just to ensure that we can continue to staff and support the officers who work in this field adequately, but to ensure that we go even further.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 98.]

Nine months later, we are still no clearer on the funding issue. There cannot be a repeat of the threat to the unit’s future, as happened in 2016, so we need clarity.

The six national wildlife crime priorities in Britain include poaching, the illegal wildlife trade and the persecution of badgers, bats and raptors. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester mentioned the persecution of raptors, and a new scientific study shows that hen harriers are disappearing on English grouse moors due to illegal killing. Natural England says that the analysis confirms

“what has long been suspected—that illegal persecution is having a major impact on the conservation status of this bird”.

I take the point, made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) that raptor persecution is not limited to grouse moors. It is important that wildlife crime is dealt with adequately, wherever it takes place. Labour has committed to carrying out a review in government of the environmental and wildlife impact of grouse shooting. What is the Government’s position on that, now that we have seen the new analysis?

We have heard that, unfortunately, no database is kept of reported wildlife crime in England and Wales, although the RSPB keeps a record of bird crimes. Crimes are recorded in Scotland, and figures released last week show that the number of wildlife crimes north of the border has fallen by 11% to the lowest recorded level in five years. At the same time, Scotland has a conviction rate of 96% for those found to have committed wildlife offences, which is the highest rate since 2012.

I believe that even those figures are likely to be wildly unrepresentative of the true number of wildlife crimes committed across Britain. We know that such crimes often take place in remote, rural areas and are likely to go undetected. There is simply not enough specialist knowledge and training in our overstretched police forces, which pushes the burden of covering all UK wildlife crime on to the overstretched few staff at the National Wildlife Crime Unit.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked extensively about the concerns about the Hunting Act 2004. The fact that so many hon. Members focused on it shows that there are serious concerns about it, which the Minister must take very seriously.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

On the National Wildlife Crime Unit, does my hon. Friend agree that, unless something is done about wild birds and birds of prey, their very existence may be threatened? Some species may become extinct if nothing is done.

[Sue Hayman]

We have just heard the new figures for hen harriers. It is incredibly important that these issues are taken seriously, recorded properly and acted upon if we are to stop that kind of wildlife crime.

I want to reiterate the commitment that Labour made on Boxing day: in government, we will strengthen the Hunting Act by closing the loopholes through a number of key measures. We will consult on reviewing sentencing to ensure that effective deterrence includes the use of custodial sentencing, in line with other wildlife crimes; strengthening the criteria for issuing research licences; removing the exemption on the use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting, as it risks appalling fights between dogs and wild mammals; and introducing a recklessness clause—hon. Members have talked about that today—to prevent trail hunting from being used as a cover for the illegal hunting of wild animals.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

The constituents of Weaver Vale and Chester would welcome that. People are tired of evidence being presented to the Crown Prosecution Service, and the current law is just not effective enough. I thank my hon. Friend for that.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. When the Labour party consulted on the animal welfare plan last year, that was one of the main issues that came up over and over again.

Labour’s Hunting Act was a key milestone in banning that blood sport, but we have heard today about new practices that have developed to exploit loopholes in the legislation. We want to call time on those who defy the law and tighten up the Hunting Act to ensure that it does what it was intended to do. As we have heard, a poll commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports found that only one rural resident in six believes that hunting with dogs reflects countryside values. More than nine in 10 think that countryside values are really about observing nature.

The Law Commission’s 2015 report on wildlife law states that the legislation governing the control, exploitation, welfare and conservation of wild animals has turned into a complex patchwork of overlapping and sometimes conflicting provisions. It has recommended reforming wildlife law in England and Wales to reduce its complexity. In 2015 it produced an excellent report and a draft Bill that deals with many of the issues we have discussed today. I want to ask the Minister why the Government have not taken the recommendations of the extensive piece of work that they commissioned any further.

I urge the Minister seriously to consider drafting a database of wildlife crime for England and Wales so that we can have a much better idea of the scale of the problem, set out the plans for the future of the National Wildlife Crime Unit, as its funding is due to run out in 2020, and really listen to the concerns that Members have expressed today so that wildlife crime in this country can be tackled once and for all.

Flooding in Cumbria

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered flooding in Cumbria.

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I wish to speak about the situation with regard to flooding in Cumbria. In the days following Storm Desmond in December 2015, in response to our collective call for action, I was promised by David Cameron that funding would be provided to protect those towns and villages along the River Kent and its tributaries. I thank the Minister for her support in holding to that; it is genuinely appreciated.

This week, the Kendal flood defence scheme will come to the council’s planning committee. MPs are generally advised to stay neutral on planning issues, but I have chosen to intervene on this occasion because, having won the funds to deliver that flood protection, I am determined to do everything I can to give families and businesses the protection and peace of mind that they so desperately need. Having waited more than three years even to get to the planning stage and having been through many iterations during the consultation, those who still live with the trauma of Storm Desmond should not be made to wait any longer, so I place on the record my concern that the proposal should not be dragged out further by an unnecessary public inquiry.

Storm Desmond’s impact on communities in Cumbria was unprecedented and long-lasting: 7,465 properties were flooded, affecting an estimated 14,694 people, the largest number of whom were in South Lakeland. Some people were out of their homes for three years, and 3,000 children were unable to return to school until the new year of 2016. They missed a vital part of their education; for some, this was in the run-up to very important January exams. In addition, 1,029 businesses were flooded, causing huge economic damage to our communities. Jobs were lost and some businesses went to the wall. Flooding caused poverty as well as heartbreak.

The long-term toll on the tourism industry is also unquestionable. In terms of popularity, the Lake district as a destination is second only to London. UNESCO recognised that in 2017 by granting world heritage site status. The Cumbria visitor economy contributes £3 billion a year and employs more than 60,000 people. However, Storm Desmond saw a 76% decrease in tourism business profits and a drop-off in visitor numbers of about the same proportion; 57% of Cumbria’s tourism businesses also reported reduced numbers of international visitors. Four months on from the floods, 77% of businesses continued to suffer reduced booking inquiries.

As well as people’s property and livelihoods being affected, there was a significant impact on Cumbria’s infrastructure. The A591 north of Grasmere was simply washed away, cutting the Lake district in two, as its most important road was then closed for more than five months. There were 107 other road closures; there was damage to 792 bridges and the closure of the west coast main line. The impact on other vital services was devastating. More than 1,000 hospital operations were cancelled, causing significant suffering and distress.

In the light of the widespread and long-term impacts, both personally and economically, it is clearly in both the national and the local interest that the Government should invest significantly in preventing a repeat of the devastation. The current plans for flood defences in my constituency provide protection for residents and businesses in Kendal, Burneside and Staveley and are welcome, but many badly affected communities are being offered nothing by the Government.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

The Derwent river catchment, which is in my constituency, has no significant flood alleviation projects in the pipeline, despite being flooded multiple times during the past 10 years, and does not qualify, under the current funding formula rules, for significant funding. The Minister is aware of our concerns, and I thank her for taking the time to listen to us on this matter, but recent alerts have led to more concerns about mental health problems among my constituents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a serious and thorough review of the current spending formula in order that all our constituents can be properly protected, as well as those in other rural areas that fall foul of the current system?

[Tim Farron]

I thoroughly agree with all that the hon. Lady has said. The funding formula for Cumbria works massively against us in terms of both resilience and response to crises. I will talk later about the impact on mental health. The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point in that respect. The lasting consequences of flooding are very often huge when it comes to people’s wellbeing and their fear of what might come next.

We welcome the funding that we have got, but it is insufficient. Many areas, such as those that the hon. Lady has referred to in her own constituency, have not received that support. In my own community, we look at the failure to come forward with funding and support for places outside Kendal in particular. Windermere Road in Grange has flooded for many years, and only now has the Environment Agency been given approval to do a 12-month appraisal. We were expecting spades in the ground by now, not more chin stroking. I would appreciate the Minister’s intervention to ensure that the residents of Grange are not kept waiting for the flood protection that they desperately need. People will be reassured by tangible, visible construction and action, not by meetings and promises. The funding has been allocated for the scheme and plans have been made; we now need to move forward with actual delivery.

Flooding in the village of Holme, along Stainton Beck, in Burton and on the Strands at Milnthorpe remains unaddressed. Those places are on a list of flooding hotspots where action remains to be taken. The same is true of many other places throughout Cumbria. The Burneside and Middleton Hall bridges have been closed for more than three years, dividing and damaging communities. In the year and a half for which the Staveley bridge was closed, the community found itself cut off and isolated, without any financial support from the Government. Kendal’s bridges, including the Victoria bridge, were closed following Storm Desmond because of safety concerns. However, when Cumbria local enterprise partnership put in a bid for £25 million to make the county’s bridges and infrastructure more flood-resilient, it was rejected by the Government.

Meanwhile, the Government have failed to come forward with any plans for protections for the communities around Windermere: Bowness, Waterhead at Ambleside and Backbarrow in particular. Those communities have been completely ignored in the Government’s plans. They remain exposed and vulnerable, subject to whatever the weather throws at them next. Of all the businesses in Cumbria closed by Storm Desmond, more than one tenth were around Windermere lake.

[Tim Farron]

I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman has said. He makes an important point, which is very significant to his constituents, but also to mine around Windermere lake. Residences are affected, but so are dozens and dozens of businesses, all of which are the backbone of our local economy and have a massive impact on the wellbeing of local people. The Government must now take responsibility for the failure to invest in protecting those businesses. We cannot get away from the impact on families and businesses, which cannot plan for the future because they feel that they might get hit again. Even a modest downpour can trigger real panic in people of all ages, especially children. Flood prevention is about protecting not just properties, but the wellbeing and mental health of the people who live in them.

I was hugely affected by what I saw and experienced on the morning after Storm Desmond, as we helped stricken people to empty their homes. I saw the forlorn Christmas decorations and sodden Christmas trees left out on the front garden or yard. I stood with people who had been made destitute. Barely able to afford to feed their children or pay the rent in the first place, they had forgone insurance because, frankly, they could not afford it, and they were left facing utter ruin. We cannot guarantee people that there will not be floods again, but we can massively reduce the risk. We can help people to give themselves permission to have confidence in the future and reassure their children, so that they can sleep easier at night.

A survey carried out by the Cumbria community recovery group reported that in the areas hit by the floods, a sense of vulnerability and loss of control was created, which re-emerged following further heavy rainfall of any kind. People reported anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, which worsened further for those facing the loss of their employment, as well as their home.

For those flooded communities that have not received help—such as Grange, Windermere and Backbarrow—I ask the Minister to change the Government’s position and agree to intervene. There are deliverable schemes that will protect all those communities around England’s largest lake, as well as the community in Grange-over-Sands. I ask that she agrees to fund those as a priority.

The failure to hold water companies to account is a further area of concern. Despite the Kendal flood defences being built to withstand a one-in-100-year event, the water companies—in our case United Utilities—are only required to meet the standards for a one-in-30-year storm event. That is ludicrous. Millions of pounds are being spent on flood defences for our community, but the area will be just as vulnerable from surface water flooding. Surface water is one of the biggest factors to cause homes to be flooded in Cumbria over the last 10 years. On Steeles Row in Burneside, poor drainage means that residents have to deal with raw sewage overflowing into their homes and on to the street every time there is even a moderate downpour. I challenge the Minister to hold water companies, such as United Utilities, to account—to a one-in-100-year standard—so that homes receive the protection that they need.

Let us be clear that we are talking about not simply flood protection, but the mitigation of a human-created disaster—the consequences of climate change, which is more properly described as a climate catastrophe. The Government have moved away from renewable energy. They have changed feed-in tariffs, so that it is harder for businesses to invest in solar energy, while giving licences for fracking. The Guardian recently outed the Government as providing some of the heaviest bursaries for gas and oil companies. The cancellation of the Swansea tidal lagoon proves that the Government have stopped even pretending to care about climate change. Britain has the second-largest tidal range in the world, and yet we fail to use that natural, renewable resource to cut carbon and create jobs.

I want us to mitigate the consequences of our failure to tackle climate change in time to protect my communities from flooding, but I am also determined that the Government take the big strategic decisions to fight climate change. That requires a revolution in renewables and a push for energy self-sufficiency, which would protect our environment, boost our economy and give us vital energy security. I see no sign of any appetite for that from this Government. I was with students in Kendal last week, protesting against inaction on climate change. That was a reminder that the coming generation will not let us get away with it, and they are absolutely right not to.

[Sue Hayman]

I was in Cockermouth on Saturday with students from Cockermouth School and other primary schools, and they take the issue very seriously. In my constituency we also have to deal with coastal erosion and coastal flooding, which are greatly impacted by climate change. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to build coastal protection into the broader funding formula for flooding protection?

[Tim Farron]

Yes, I agree, and I will come on to the need to treat Cumbria as a special case when it comes to flood funding allocation. We have a very long coast with many tidal estuaries, which could be a source of energy but are also a source of flood risk. The hon. Lady makes a very good point.

Flooding is a problem in my patch, as well as for my constituency neighbours, the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), but it is a problem that only stands to get worse. The extreme weather events that we face are becoming more frequent. According to the Met Office website, Westmorland has the highest average annual rainfall of any place in England. The most beautiful place in the country turns out to be the wettest—who would have thought it? We have a lot of lakes to keep topped up.

I ask the Minister to re-evaluate the funding criteria, to ensure that Cumbria is treated as a special case with recurring support for flood resilience, because for us it is not a question of whether it will flood, but when and how severely. I want the Minister to intervene with emergency funding to protect the communities around Windermere, such as Grange and Backbarrow, which currently face the future with no protection. We need more than just one-off lumps of money to deal with crises; we need a fundamental change in the funding formula.

The current partnership funding mechanism focuses on the value of assets protected. That obviously favours wealthier communities and parts of the country where house prices are higher and homes more densely built. It dilutes any consideration of how likely an area is to flood. The system of classification is, frankly, not fit for purpose. Many communities flooded in 2005, 2009 and 2015; that is three floods in 10 years, each of them at least a one-in-100-year event, meaning that flood frequency estimations are now wildly inaccurate for Cumbria. Properties should now be placed in the higher risk category, based on the reality of the past 10 to 20 years. The current figures are based on statistics that are so far out of date that they have basically become fantasy.

In short, the steps that the Government need to take are clear and threefold. First, we need urgent investment now. We need to build capacity to take water out of Windermere at times of high rainfall in order to protect the communities on its banks. I have presented the Minister with a case for such a scheme made by one of my constituents, and I look forward to hearing her response. Secondly, we need the Government to hold the water companies to account, so that communities are given the long-term protection they need. Thirdly, it is clear that the Government need fundamentally to shift their thinking when it comes to the allocation of funding for flood defences, so that we in Cumbria—England’s wettest county—get the recurring funding we need to make ourselves resilient, and to keep our families and businesses safe.

I am massively proud of our people and communities in Cumbria. In the face of devastation, they pulled together to support one another at great personal cost. For example, the Kendal Cares initiative sprang up literally overnight after Storm Desmond, to meet the needs of those who had lost so much. Today, I want the Minister to commit to supporting our communities in an enduring way, so that we can prevent a repeat of the devastation that occurred in December 2015. Cumbria surely deserves that protection, and I hope that the Minister will provide it.

Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 General Committees

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The Minister helpfully explained that, following concerns from the RSPB, Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link, and from the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the original SI was withdrawn and re-laid with changes. While some welcome changes have been made, I am concerned that not all the issues raised seem to have been adequately addressed. I therefore have a few questions that I will be grateful if the Minister will address. I will also highlight the severity of the biodiversity crisis and the urgent need for effective action to reverse the catastrophic decline in species that we are seeing.

I stress that the Opposition continue to take a dim view of the Government’s conduct of the entire process of EU exit secondary legislation. They have recruited thousands of extra civil servants and lawyers and spent £100 million on consultants, and the result of their work is now being dumped on Parliament in hundreds of SIs, most of which have not been scrutinised or debated at all. We believe, quite frankly, that the citizens of this country deserve better.

On the draft regulations, regulation 8 deals with reporting requirements. Will the Minister set out what the reports will cover and explain the apparent differences in the reporting information required between protected species and habitats and between special areas of conservation and special protection areas? We agree with Greener UK that the draft instrument is wrong to omit the requirement for independent review and recommendations on any further action and/or measures needed. How will simply making reports public and sending them to the Bern convention ensure the timely identification of concerns and the taking of additional measures? Will the Minister look at whether the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, for example, could exercise independent review until the new environmental watchdog is established?

Regulation 13 inserts new regulation 16A into the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Will the Minister explain whether the use of “proportionate” in the new regulation diverges from the habitats directive, as Greener UK contends, and will therefore permit less stringent management of species with a smaller natural range in the UK? Regulation 30 gives Ministers the power to amend the list of prohibited methods of taking or killing wild animals as necessary, to adapt to technical and scientific progress. What consultation and scrutiny, if any, will such changes be subject to? Will the Minister formally pledge that expert input and advice will be both sought and taken into account, including by the devolved Administrations, before any changes are made?

Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link both point out the potential for confusion in introducing a new term, “national site networks”, into the already crowded vocabulary of protected sites. We already have national sites—sites of special scientific interest—as notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and international sites listed under the Ramsar convention. The draft instrument includes Natura 2000 sites, which the Scottish amending regulations have redefined as “the UK site network” to include terrestrial, marine and offshore European sites. Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link sensibly recommend the term “international sites network”, to recognise the status of the sites and to include Ramsar sites. This would avoid any confusion with the current national network of SSSIs and marine conservation zones. Will the Minister consider that?

The explanatory memorandum refers to the Bonn and Bern conventions but omits other relevant international conventions to which the UK is a signatory, such as the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, the convention on biodiversity and the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, or OSPAR. How will the Minister ensure that the need to reference these agreements is clearly understood when the regulations are being considered and applied?

Loss of habitat is one of the main contributors to the decline of bees and other insects across the world, causing great environmental concern. Buglife says that without sufficient action to tackle this fragmentation of our landscapes, between 40% and 70% of pollinator species could become extinct. It is critical to biodiversity and the whole ecosystem food chain that we take urgent action to protect insect habitats.

How will the policy framework established by this SI support steps to reverse the decline of pollinators and insects, as well as the alarming rate of species decline in the UK? Will the Government reverse the severe cuts to Natural England in particular, to enable it to halt and reverse species decline while taking on the additional responsibilities being brought back from the EU by this and other Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SIs?

I hope the Minister will take these concerns very seriously and look again at the matters I have raised. Having said that, we do not intend to vote against the SI on this occasion.

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Labour believes that this statutory instrument needs urgent modification to avoid disruption to UK businesses in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It shows insufficient understanding of how chemicals are actually managed in complex supply chains, and is therefore unworkable and will unnecessarily create supply disruption issues for UK businesses. Labour believes that continued participation in REACH is the surest way to avoid extra costs and burdens for business, to save jobs and to protect animal welfare, health and safety, and the environment.

The value of the UK chemicals industry cannot be overstated. The sector directly employs 88,000 people, and the industry is worth £6.4 billion to the UK economy every year. It is vital in the supply chain to many other sectors including automotives, pharmaceuticals and aerospace, as well as the production of everyday items such as cleaning products, clothes, and electronics. It is therefore extremely disappointing that we have only been given half a sitting day’s notice of this SI. It represents the second iteration that the Government have published, yet it does little to address the concerns with the first version. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said of this re-laid SI that it remains

“concerned that the Department has provided insufficient information on the possible impact of the proposed changes”.

Given the concerns expressed by the Committee, industry, environmental and animal welfare groups and the Opposition, does the Minister agree that the prudent thing would be to take this SI back to the drawing board?

I am particularly worried because I am told that the Health and Safety Executive lacks the capacity, resource, experience and expertise in such a complex field to carry out the functions that the Government propose to transfer from the European Chemicals Agency. As with so many public sector organisations, the HSE has suffered brutal cutbacks. Between 2010 and 2017, its budget was cut by 40%, so why does the SI contain confirmation of its funding? Will the Minister confirm today that funding and resources will be available to the HSE and the Environment Agency for them to perform the proposed duties outlined?

The SI also removes layers of supporting committees at EU level that help to ensure that decisions are based on the best scientific advice and that there is proper scrutiny and oversight. Those committees allow stakeholders from industry, non-governmental organisations and trade unions to collaborate in informing decisions and to ensure balance. In the SI, that is replaced with a duty for the HSE to seek external advice, but no formal committees of experts and stakeholders are being proposed to review and scrutinise the scientific knowledge relating to chemicals.

Furthermore, the SI establishes that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make final decisions relating to the status of particular chemicals, whereas the European Commission makes them at EU level. Although we hope it is unlikely that a Secretary of State will diverge from HSE recommendations, they are not explicitly prevented from so doing. We know that the current Secretary of State is notoriously no fan of experts, but he may have gone too far in asking us to grant him powers to override recommendations from the HSE.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said, the Government initially said that they could cut and paste data from the REACH database. However, there seems to have been a significant rowing back from that, with current guidance indicating that companies will provide all the data. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, in order to have copied data from the REACH database, the UK would have needed a licence from the European Chemicals Agency. Will the Minister confirm what progress she and Government colleagues have made in acquiring permission to access the REACH database after 29 March?

Many UK-based companies do not own or have sufficient rights to use the data needed for registration, for a variety of complex reasons, including the fact that many REACH registration dossiers have been developed and submitted by consortia of companies under a joint submission agreement with specific and restricted access rights. A survey of 38 companies by the Chemical Industries Association found that 75% of them do not own the data that would be required for them to register chemicals under UK REACH. Does the Minister recognise that meeting the two-year registration deadline is an almost impossible and extremely costly task for many companies? The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) asked about the current status of the IT provisions, and I was unconvinced by the Minister’s response that they will be ready and fit for purpose on exit day.

After Brexit, companies registered with REACH will no longer be able to sell into the EEA market without transferring their registrations to an EEA-based organisation. How many companies have taken such action to date, and what support has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provided to them? Given the likelihood that companies will have to duplicate tests already conducted if the Secretary of State cannot agree access to information in the REACH database, there is a real risk that animal tests would have to be reconducted. In evidence to the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, the Minister refused to rule out the idea that a UK REACH system would not lead to more animal testing.

[John Redwood]

Surely global companies are used to selling into a variety of jurisdictions with different regulatory requirements, and each company has a body of intellectual property that it owns and sends to the appropriate regulator. I do not see any need to duplicate the work if that is already there. If a company wants to sell into the UK, it will share that with the UK authority.

[Sue Hayman]

I am afraid that that is not the information I have been given. As I said, the Minister did not rule that out to the Lords Committee, and when I went to Brussels to visit the REACH team, they confirmed that they believed this would be the case. Will the Minister categorically confirm whether these proposals have the potential to lead to further animal testing?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend has triggered a memory that I thought I had buried. On the animal testing point, when our Committee held an update hearing in December, one concern raised was about where the intellectual property that UK companies have submitted into the REACH database lives. There was a great deal of concern that the Minister’s reassurances that companies could just go and get that intellectual property, which they have paid for and registered, out of the database is problematic, because it is now owned by REACH, and once the UK leaves, we ironically will not have access to our own intellectual property. Does that not show the complete misunderstanding of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) of how the world trades in chemicals, on which REACH sets the global standard?

[Sue Hayman]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

If we voted to pass this SI, we would be voting for legislation that is likely to increase animal suffering through duplicate testing. It would also mean that critical decisions on chemicals were made by a body with little experience and layers of accountability and scientific expertise stripped away. Greener UK has said:

“As currently drafted, the chemicals SI significantly weakens the regulation of chemicals, including those with links to cancer and hormone disruption.”

How can we responsibly let this secondary legislation pass, in the light of these serious and grave reservations? Does the Minister recognise those risks, and can she guarantee that British people will continue to receive the same health and safety and environmental benefits that we currently do as a member of REACH?

In a no-deal Brexit scenario, we would become a third party to REACH on 29 March, with all existing REACH registrations and authorisations held by UK companies becoming immediately invalid. Companies wanting to continue to export into the EU would need to transfer their registrations to EU-based companies or rely on their customers making importer registrations.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good and interesting point. This issue does not only cover products and the environment. We have industries that use very dangerous chemicals, to say the least. It is important that we have the highest standards, if for nothing else than to protect people’s rights at work. Does she agree?

[Sue Hayman]

I completely agree. In fact, representatives of trade unions have made exactly that point to me, and they have deep concerns about this.

Companies wanting to transfer their registrations would potentially need customers to make importer registrations. That could lead to serious ramifications down the supply chain and interruptions to the many billions of pounds’ worth of trade between the UK and EU.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is making an excellent speech and being very generous with her time. I wanted to intervene on the Minister on the issue of grandfathering rights. Is not the truth that British companies are now in an invidious position where, if they want to keep trading with the EU after exit day, whenever that may come—goodness knows what will happen in the next 48 hours, let alone the next five weeks—they will have to transfer their registrations to an affiliate in the EU? How can they then grandfather those rights into the UK’s chemical regulation system when they have given them away in the European Union?

[Sue Hayman]

Once again, my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Of course, we also need to look at the huge costs to companies of these actions. The problems and difficulties that will be caused are not short-term but long-term.

Does the Minister acknowledge that a no-deal outcome brings with it huge risks to industry, jobs and our environment? Due to the numerous deficits and risks posed, we will be voting against this SI and would encourage Members across the House to do the same in good conscience.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I have tried to outline the different activities we are already taking and what is being planned. The year 2020 will be key. We have the convention for biodiversity, and we are already in consultation with other countries around the world on how we can tackle this global challenge.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Hon. Members are absolutely right to raise the issue of insect decline, but it is not just about insects. We know there have been huge declines in many birds and mammals, too. I am sure that like myself, Mr Speaker, as a child you enjoyed grubbing around for grass snakes and slowworms.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

[Sue Hayman]

It is now much harder for new generations to do that. How will the draft environment Bill, which has been roundly condemned as toothless, ensure that this appalling ecological meltdown will be properly tackled?

[Dr Coffey]

Alongside the draft clauses we presented on governance in the Bill, we also published a policy paper. I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise that several of the items outlined in it will help us towards tackling the issue. This will be about a shift away from the common agricultural policy, where farmers are in effect just being rewarded for land ownership, and moving towards paying for ecosystem services. I believe that that will benefit all the different species to which she refers.

[Sue Hayman]

That is all very well, but another huge concern is the cuts to Natural England. Grants to Natural England have been cut by nearly half, and we now hear that there may well be further cuts of between £3.5 million and £8 million over the next year. How can that be justified?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will recognise that the Government took a view in 2010 that we had to balance the books after the record deficit from the last Labour Government. There was a realignment of what needed to be done on Government funding. I believe that Natural England has the resources it needs to undertake its role. Natural England will continue to focus on what is best for preserving the environment in England.