Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I commend the work that my hon. Friend does in building relations and important trading links with Nigeria, which is an important trading partner. It is also an important market for some fisheries products, including mackerel. I am delighted to hear that he has invited the Nigerian agriculture Minister here to see some of the great work that we do through the supply chain and some of the technology that we use to reduce waste in the supply chain.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that it is crucial to place the needs of the agricultural sector at the heart of the Brexit negotiations? Is it not clear that if the Government do not get their act together, a bad Brexit deal would leave British farmers and food producers facing the double whammy of cheap food imports and tariffs on their exports?

[George Eustice]

Access to the UK market is incredibly important for European countries as well. We export around £11 billion-worth of food and drink to the European Union, but we import some £28 billion-worth of food from the EU. That is why farming unions across the EU are telling their Governments that they must have a free trade agreement with the UK.

[Sue Hayman]

But how do the Government intend to deliver on these promises? The Country Land and Business Association is saying that the Government should admit that they cannot design a workable new agricultural policy in less than two years because DEFRA simply does not have the capacity to do so. The Government’s failure to reach an agreement could leave our farmers unable to compete at home and abroad. What specific guarantees can the Minister provide here today to rural communities across the country that farming subsidies and tariff-free trade will be guaranteed under a Tory Government?

[George Eustice]

We have some tremendously talented policy officials in DEFRA and in our agencies, and they have been working closely on the detail behind the design of future agricultural policy on some of those issues. The Prime Minister has made it clear that she is going to make an offer to the other European countries of a bold, ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement.

Animal Welfare

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and for his continued chairmanship of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We have had excellent contributions from both sides of the House, including many from members of the Select Committee.

I would like to speak broadly in favour of the Committee’s recommendations. It is an excellent and thorough report, and I recommend that everyone read it. Having seen the RSPCA’s response to the report, I concur with its assessment of the recommendations and urge the Government to pay heed to them.

It has been said that Britain has the best animal welfare in the world. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was a landmark piece of legislation and we in the Labour party are very proud of it. Acting upon the report’s recommendations would cement our position as world leader and ensure that our high standard of animal welfare is maintained. I would like to touch on two main points from the report, areas that have been admirably covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).

First, I agree with the Committee and the RSPCA that the Government should ban the third-party sale of dogs. Dogs should be available only from licensed, regulated breeders or approved re-homing organisations. The Pet Animals Act 1951 requires third-party sellers of dogs to hold a pet shop licence. However, this licensing is not protecting the welfare of all dogs or the interests of consumers, so the current situation is no longer fit for purpose. Licensing must be considered appropriate for third-party sales only if it meets the welfare needs of puppies. It serves no purpose if it does not mitigate risks or prevent harm. The only solution to protect the welfare of puppies is to ban third-party sales entirely.

International studies have found that puppies obtained from pet shops are more likely to be aggressive towards people, fearful, prone to separation anxiety, and infected with parasites and pathogens to a significant level. Behavioural problems are the most common cause of euthanasia in dogs under two years old, with the most common cause of fear and aggression being a lack of socialisation during the critical period up to 16 weeks old. Responsible breeders, by definition, will not sell puppies through third parties.

The third-party licensed pet shop market depends on and sustains low welfare breeding. As long as there is a market for cheap, intensively bred puppies, welfare problems will persist because the incentives for non-compliance far exceed the potential penalties.

We heard about online sales from the hon. Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). Demand has also been mentioned, and we need to look at that as well. Availability may artificially inflate demand, so reducing the supply of cheap, poorly bred puppies from dealers will promote a more responsible buying culture. A ban is vital to protect the welfare of puppies, and to serve as an essential first step in the improvement of standards in high-risk breeding establishments.

When we bought our family dog, a lovely chocolate labrador called Max, we knew how to find him—we knew who to buy from: we knew where to find a responsible breeder—but not everyone knows how to do that. We need to protect consumers from irresponsible breeders, and help them to make responsible purchases. We must ensure that animal welfare comes before profit. The Government must place a statutory duty on local authorities to enforce the Animal Welfare Act so that it has proper teeth, and then give local authorities adequate resources with which to enforce the regulations made under the Act.

The Committee recommended an increase in the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences to five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) has done a huge amount of work on that with Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; I am grateful for her contribution today, and I am proud to support her campaign. Labour’s Animal Welfare Act created and amended a number of offences—for instance, causing deliberate harm or any unnecessary suffering to an animal, and wilful neglect. Such offences carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine: the penalty was raised in 2015 from a maximum fine of £20,000. The Act also includes a provision to increase sentences to 51 weeks under the “custody plus” system, consisting of a combination of community service and imprisonment. Current sentencing guidance issued by the independent Sentencing Council states that the starting point for attempting to kill, torture or cause prolonged neglect to an animal and the permitting of fighting is an 18-week custodial sentence, with a range of between 12 and 26 weeks in custody.

Unfortunately, the Government have yet to make any significant changes to ensure that the punishment for animal cruelty reflects the gravity of the crime. They should consider increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, and providing for the most serious cases of abuse to be heard in the Crown court. Groups such as the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA, and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home have expressed concern about the sentences for animal cruelty, which do not always appear to match the abuse suffered by the animals, especially in the case of extreme cruelty such as dog fighting. Sentences—which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)— must reflect the seriousness of such crimes.

The Labour manifesto of 2015 committed us to improving protection for cats and dogs. We support the call by the League Against Cruel Sports for the implementation of its dog fighting action plan, which would include the holding by statutory agencies of a national register of individuals banned from keeping dogs. The RSPCA has run campaigns calling on the Government to undertake a review of sentencing for animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act, and to amend it to allow tougher sentencing for offences such as animal fighting. Of the 752 people who were found guilty of causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals in 2014, only 76 received a sentence involving immediate custody, and only about half that number received custodial sentences of more than three months.

Finally, I have a couple of Brexit-related questions for the Minister. First, will he commit himself to maintaining all existing animal welfare legislation post-Brexit? Secondly—this was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers)—does he agree that any trade deals struck post-Brexit must respect the high animal welfare standards of the UK, and must not undermine the ability of British farmers to compete at home?

I look forward to the Minister’s response, and hope that he will take on board the many excellent recommendations in the Committee’s report.

Middle Level Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak to the private Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for so thoroughly covering the background and setting out why the Bill is needed. I would like to emphasise a few points, because I think it is important that the House has a clear understanding of the proposals and of why the Bill is needed.

The Bill amends and updates the powers of the Middle Level Commissioners to regulate navigation on the Middle Level of the fens. It will bring the Middle Level into line with powers granted to the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust, and the Norfolk Broads Authority. We have heard that the existing legislation dates from the 18th and 19th centuries, primarily the Middle Level Act 1862, and so it is remarkably out of date.

The Middle Level Commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area, and are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. The Middle Level, the largest of the Great Level of the fens, was reclaimed by drainage of the land in the 17th century. It consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, with 100 miles of them being statutory. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local internal drainage boards, much of this fenland would be underwater, as much of it is below sea level. This would have a devastating impact on the 100,000 people who live and work in the area.

The commissioners have consulted widely and thoroughly with interested parties, the substantial majority of whom were in favour of the proposed changes. In a nutshell, the Bill would allow the Middle Level Commissioners to: charge vessels to use the waterways; fine people for staying longer than allowed at moorings; check that boats using the waterways have valid insurance; remove sunken or abandoned vessels; temporarily close sections of waterways for works or events; and enter into arrangements with other navigation authorities for the mutual recognition of registrations and licences.

Chris Howes, a local boat enthusiast, told the Wisbech Standard in March 2016 that he agreed with the commissioners’ plans, citing the apparently abandoned boats rotting away on the Old Nene that could be got rid of under the new powers. He said:

“the proposals are potentially so exciting, and so beneficial to Fenland, it’s hugely important that they come to fruition…If we want Fenland to aspire to be a tourist destination in the same way that Holland is, generating income to invest in our currently largely inaccessible waterways is a necessary stage.”

Iain Smith, the chief executive of the Middle Level Commissioners, said:

“it is important to update the laws, enabling us to have better control of the waterways we oversee.”

Additional income for the commissioners could make a real difference to fenland and to the waterways. I personally know the area well, having lived near there for a number of years, and would support any efforts to boost the local economy.

The Bill would bring legislation covering the Middle Level into the 21st century, in line with other navigation authorities. We support it.

Badger Culling

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to have the opportunity to respond to this debate today for the Opposition.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for opening the debate and demonstrating, with his usual eloquence, his passion for the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made some important and knowledgeable contributions to the debate. I stress the fact that she talked about the importance of consensus. If we are going to solve this problem and eradicate this disease, we need to work together. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) clearly set out the importance of using science and evidence, so that we can develop a policy that works. He also stressed the importance of developing a vaccination, as did the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown).

As we have heard today, bovine TB has a significant impact on farmers by causing loss of livestock, particularly for small dairy farmers, who are already under significant financial pressure on a daily basis. The compensation they receive for slaughtered cattle is not good—up to a maximum of £1,225 for non-pedigree dairy cows and less for beef cows. Quite simply, bovine TB must be urgently controlled and eradicated. However, I want to be absolutely clear: the Labour party opposes badger culling, because we do not believe that it is the most effective way of managing the disease or that is it the most humane.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge also mentioned the fact that during the last Parliament the independent expert panel, which was appointed to monitor the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of the first year of the badger culls, concluded that the 2013 culls had failed on both effectiveness and humaneness. A number of other hon. Members also mentioned that during the debate.

Last August, the Government agreed that seven new culling areas would be permitted in England, in addition to the existing areas. Culling in these areas will be carried out over four years. In 2016, culls took place in each area between 29 August and 18 October. Although the Chief Veterinary Officer has advised that the culls were humane and effective, and show that culling can help to achieve disease control benefits, environmental experts have questioned the validity of the evidence base and argue that there is no basis for drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of culling in reducing bovine TB.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to pursuing other measures, including tighter cattle controls, biosecurity, and the design of the new badger edge vaccination scheme. However, it is disappointing that the Government propose licensing a supplementary form of badger control only after a cull has been completed over at least four years.

Clearly, it is time for long-term solutions to combat bovine TB. We would like to see an alternative, science-led approach, combining a number of methods, to prioritise the development of a vaccine, together with improved cattle testing and cattle management, with tighter biosecurity measures and improved animal husbandry. Evidence-based and science-led policy must be at the heart of everything we do.

We have heard extensively about the different approach taken by the Welsh Government. Since 2012, they have vaccinated more than 5,600 badgers in Wales and the number of cattle herds under restrictions from bovine TB is now at its lowest level there since 2006, with 95% of Welsh herds TB-free. We have heard how there has been a 47% reduction in new instances of the disease in Wales, as a result of increased testing frequency, improved biosecurity and other cattle control methods alone. That compares, as we have heard, with the net reduction of just 16% of new incidents of bovine TB over nine years of randomised badger cull trials in England. We have heard about the cost—the cull cost of £6,700 per badger. I cannot believe that any hon. Member would consider that to be anything other than an extraordinary amount of money, considering—as the RSPCA notes and as we have heard—an estimated cost of £662 per badger vaccinated in Wales. The substantial amount of money that would be saved by vaccination would be better invested in supporting the farming industry.

[Simon Hart]

I am sorry to bore Members with this, but that is an annual figure. The hon. Lady needs to look at it over the lifetime, rather than as a single figure.

[Sue Hayman]

It may well be an annual figure, but there is still an extraordinarily significant difference between the two figures.

[Simon Hart]

It is 10 years.

[Sue Hayman]

Well, I consider it to be extraordinary, and I think that many colleagues do, as well.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The policing costs for the cull areas would be zero if it were not for the effects of the protesters; therefore we cannot compare one figure with another. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) just said, and as I said in my speech, when the annual cost of vaccination is extended over five years the actual cost is not £660 per badger but £3,000.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It only goes to show that we really need proper evidence. However we look at it, it is much more expensive, per badger, to cull.

[Paul Flynn]

Does my hon. Friend agree that vaccination has the effect of giving immunity on a continuing basis, by removing the disease, whereas culling has proved to be effective for only short periods, with instances of the disease then returning in great numbers? Last year there was a large number of new cases and 35 areas that were previously bovine TB-free were declared infected. The culling is therefore failing.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The important thing is that we have effective long-term solutions, and vaccination has been shown to play an important part in that.

The example of Wales has shown what we need to emulate here in England. The randomised badger culling trial—RBCT—which has been mentioned, is the largest ever study conducted to examine whether culling badgers would reduce TB in cattle. It concluded that

“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain”,

and went on to state:

“It is unfortunate that agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control.”

In 2012, Lord Krebs, President of the British Science Association and a key scientist involved in the RBCT study, called the Government’s cull policy “mindless”, adding:

“The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. The government is cherry-picking bits of data to support its case.”

An October 2012 letter to The Observer, signed by 31 eminent scientists, described the cull as a “costly distraction” and stated:

“As scientists with expertise in managing wildlife and wildlife diseases, we believe the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it.”

In 2015, a group of scientists and wildlife experts wrote another letter, this time calling on the Government to

“reconsider, immediately, the decision to continue and extend the culling of badgers.”

We have been falsely presented with the impression that without large-scale badger culling, bovine TB cannot be effectively controlled. It is all very well to say that culling a certain percentage of badgers in an area will halt the spread of the disease, but who is to say the culled badgers are not disease-free and the surviving badgers are carrying the disease? We must be careful not to do more harm than good by dispersing infected badgers into previously unaffected areas and spreading the problem. That is something no one wants to see.

It is clear that we need urgent investment in a widespread vaccination programme and a proper biosecurity strategy. That means reducing the chances of cattle and badgers coming into contact, directly or indirectly, to minimise the risk of the disease entering a farm. We have heard that in 2015 the British Veterinary Association withdrew its support for the shooting of free-running badgers, stating:

“it has not been demonstrated conclusively that controlled shooting can be carried out effectively and humanely”.

In a letter to the Prime Minister last summer, Professors John Bourne, Rosie Woodroffe and Ranald Munro wrote:

“We urge you to review the considerable evidence that culling badgers is a risky, costly, and inhumane tool in the fight against bovine TB. We submit to you that expanding this unpromising programme would fly in the face of scientific evidence. We publicly call on you at this time to halt—not expand—the failed badger cull.”

They concluded that

“the roll out into many more areas will immediately increase the risk of a considerable number of badgers being injured and suffering”

for a cull that “doesn’t actually work.”

Bovine TB has been a problem for a long time, and badger culling has been attempted as a solution for many years, yet the disease has not gone away, so it is clear that efforts are not working. Although it is very welcome that the Government are pursuing other measures, such as tighter cattle controls, biosecurity and the designing of the new badger edge vaccination scheme, subject to a global shortage of the vaccine, it is disappointing that they continue to pursue culling.

Now is the time to change our approach. Vaccination and biosecurity must be the priority, and I urge the Government to prioritise them, along with improved cattle testing and management. We must urgently find long-term solutions to stop the spread of bovine TB, but we must do so in a humane way, following scientific advice.

Microbead Ban

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) on securing this debate on such an important issue, which she obviously feels strongly about, and introducing it so clearly and passionately. I am sure that other hon. Members have received a lot of emails and letters about this issue, as I have. It is of genuine concern to our constituents, so I am really delighted that we had the opportunity to have this debate and hear so many important contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) both spoke about the 8 million tonnes of plastics that enter the oceans each year. My hon. Friend spoke about the wider issue of plastics breaking down into smaller and smaller parts in the water. She also made an interesting suggestion about the UN’s clean seas campaign, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it. Is there an opportunity for the Government to work on a global scale? As a coastal MP, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) always speaks passionately about marine issues. He clearly feels strongly about the damage that is being done to the marine environment. He made an excellent speech.

I am concerned that the current Government policy has failed to provide the right framework to stop litter from reaching the sea in the first place, or at least to reduce the amount that gets there. As we have heard today, the huge amount of plastic in the sea is massively damaging to marine animals and the ecosystems in which they live. We heard the shocking statistic that 90% of birds have plastic in their stomach, and we heard from the hon. Member for Taunton Deane that there are serious concerns about microplastics entering the food chain and reaching humans.

We have to think about how we manage our resources, particularly plastics, whose disposal is so problematic. Biodegradable alternatives to microbeads are available, but they can be more expensive to produce, so they are not always so attractive to manufacturers. It is up to us as Members of Parliament to take action. The Labour party has long supported a ban on microbeads in cosmetics, so we warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to legislate for such a ban. I understand that the legislation is expected to come into force in October this year, that the ban on the manufacture of microbeads in cosmetics will apply from the beginning of 2018, and that the ban on sales is expected to apply from the end of June 2018.

The hon. Member for Taunton Deane made the good point that some manufacturers are already doing something about the problem—she listed some supermarkets. I give credit to some of the companies that have already taken voluntary action to take microbeads out of rinse-off products: Colgate-Palmolive, which phased them out all the way back in 2014; Unilever and Boots, which phased them out in 2015; and the L’Oréal group, which is currently phasing them out. Those big companies recognise the issue’s importance to consumers, so the Government really need to grab it with both hands. I must also draw attention to the campaign group Beat the Microbead, which provides details of companies that consumers can go to for products that are free from microbeads.

The Government have said that their plans to ban microbeads in cosmetics will

“create a level playing field for industry, tackle inconsistency and stop new products…from being sold in the UK.”

I firmly agree with that. The Opposition support and welcome the Government’s action so far.

We have heard details of what has happened in America, where President Obama signed an Act to outlaw the sale and distribution of toiletries that contain microbeads. Similar legislation is being planned in Canada. Studies have shown that the majority of the British public believe that we should follow those examples and ban the use of microbeads in toiletries. I hear that view regularly from my constituents.

As we know, the Government have consulted on a ban of microplastics for cosmetics and personal care products. We await the outcome of that consultation eagerly, but organisations such as Greenpeace have expressed concern that it does not cover all products that contain microplastic ingredients. The Government have also said that they will gather further evidence on the environmental impact of microbeads in other products before they go on to consider what can be done to tackle plastics such as microfibres, which also affect our environment, as we have heard.

We need to rethink how we manage our resources, so that we can make genuine progress on waste prevention and guide Britain towards a circular economy. That would be a significant step forward and would mean our having to move to a more resource-efficient economy. Will the Minister set out how the Government intend to meet their ambitious waste targets and therefore unlock the economic opportunities presented by greater resource efficiency? It would also be helpful if she gave an indication of when we are likely to see the 25-year plan.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has done some excellent work on the issue:

“Fish don’t care where the plastic they are eating comes from, so it’s vital the ban covers all microplastics in all down the drain products”,

which can end up in our oceans. Our marine life depends on our taking action and leading the way on this. A ban must cover all products that contain microplastics; we cannot be selective. Unless the ban is all-encompassing, it will not provide the protections that are needed for wildlife, and we will continue to cause real harm to our marine life and marine animals. I urge the Minister to listen to what hon. Members have said today and act now by introducing a complete ban.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We have some preferential trade agreements in place with some developing countries, particularly to buy sugar from the Caribbean. We want to maintain and secure such arrangements so that we can support developing countries.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about food prices falling, but supermarkets are warning of the potential for food prices to rise significantly this year, which will have a huge effect on every household in the country. Nearly half our food is imported and prices are already starting to rise for the first time in three years owing to the weak pound and inflation. What exactly are the Government doing to help with rising prices in people’s weekly food shop?

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, we closely monitor the amount of money that people spend on food, which has remained remarkably stable at around 16.5% for the past decade. We continue to keep the issue under review. I simply point out to Labour Members that the greatest spike in food prices took place in 2008 on Labour’s watch. Food prices have been falling since 2014.

[Sue Hayman]

The Minister talks about monitoring, but it was recently revealed that research to inform agricultural and environmental policy once the UK leaves the European Union has not even been commissioned by the Department. The Minister’s warm words are all very well, but the agricultural sector desperately needs long-term clarity and the Government are failing to deliver it. Will the Minister tell us how the Government can have any real understanding of the current situation without adequate research being in place?

[George Eustice]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that the Department is doing a vast amount of analysis and research to inform future policy. We received a specific parliamentary question about whether we have commissioned direct scientific research on the effects of leaving the European Union, and she is right that we have not, but we do not need to. All our environmental policies are regularly evaluated for their strengths and weaknesses.

Future Flood Prevention

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

This has been a really interesting debate. It was admirably opened by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who gave the House some really interesting information from his Committee’s report. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, who talked about the huge impact that climate change is having on our communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) spoke knowledgeably about the importance of catchment planning and about the Dutch model. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) used his experience of working with the fire and rescue services to show why a statutory duty is needed to deal with flooding. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) shared her considerable experience on this issue and stressed the importance of funding the research being carried out at universities such as York.

Making communities truly flood resilient is one of our greatest challenges. Flooding varies greatly. The flooding in Somerset was not the same as the floods on the east coast, which in turn were very different from the flooding in Cumbria. The House will be aware of the devastating effect that Storm Desmond had on my community last winter, as well as the previous significant flooding that we suffered. Flooding is not just about water. In Cumbria, it roars down the fells, carrying everything in its path. Drains back up and overflow, and huge amounts of rocks, gravel and trees race along in the water. Floods are incredibly destructive. We have had roads and bridges completely destroyed.

So what should we do? As has been discussed today, we need to look at the whole river catchment. We need to invest in sustainable drainage systems. And I believe that we need to stop talking about flood prevention. We cannot prevent flooding, but we can manage it and make our communities properly resilient. People are nervous and frightened, and it is time we took seriously the effect of flooding on mental health. Every time it rains heavily—in Cumbria that is not exactly rare—people are scared that the flooding will happen again. The University of Cumbria is carrying out a survey into mental wellbeing. This is an important piece of work on understanding better the effect of flooding and repeated flooding on our communities.

We also need to look at how we improve emergency planning right across the country. Flooded communities always pull together in an extraordinary way in a crisis, but they feel that there has been insufficient progress due to a lack of leadership, both locally and nationally. We have local flood action groups with a wealth of knowledge and experience, but they feel that they are being kept out of the loop when it comes to decision making and information sharing. That is deeply frustrating for smaller communities, who feel that they are not important because of their small populations. Why should areas such as Barepot and Hall Park View in my constituency be left out because they have only a few homes?

There have been calls in the Committee’s report for a national flood authority, and perhaps that is what is needed, but, if so, local communities must have a clear route into it. Can the Minister assure me that local flood action groups and communities, including local farmers, will be properly consulted and listened to when we develop the truly holistic approach to flood management that we need? After the floods in Cumbria, the Environment Agency told me that the flood defences that were installed after the 2009 floods did what they had been designed to do. Indeed they did, but they were insufficient for the scale of the floods in 2015. This was also the case in other areas, such as York. They made a big difference in some areas and to some families, but that was little comfort to the many people made homeless at Christmas time.

The Government have promised more funding for defences, but the costs for Cumbria alone are estimated to be £500 million, and the solutions we need are about much more than building higher and higher walls. The water has to go somewhere, and if we are not careful we will build flood defences that protect one area but damage another.

We also have to look at planning. There has simply been too much building on flood plains over the years. The Government say that this is no longer a problem as the law was changed in 2009 to prevent building on flood plains, but I have visited two separate areas where houses that had never flooded before were flooded after a new housing development had been built close by. We have to consider the potential impact of all proposed developments on other properties. Maybe the solution is a revised flood impact planning regulation.

Gravel also causes huge damage to infrastructure, farmland and river banks. Parishes and landowners used to keep watercourses clear of silt and debris. This regular management has stopped, however, and local farmers and residents tell me that that has raised the height of the rivers and that bridges have huge deposits of gravel around them. Bridges can be extreme pinch points and end up acting as dams as they become clogged with debris, which backs up the water again. There are also huge deposits of gravel on the farmland next to the rivers. One farmer I know had a bill for £35,000 to clean up his land after the 2009 floods, and he was faced with exactly the same bill in 2015. How will the Minister ensure that proper river management takes place? Is she prepared to look at an incentive scheme to pay farmers to allow the storage of flood water on farmland to reduce flood risk?

Household insurance has been mentioned a lot in the debate. Often it is offered either with huge excesses or not at all. Flood Re is welcome, but is in its infancy and does not work for everyone. I welcomed the new British Insurance Brokers Association schemes to cover businesses. They are something I had been pressing for in Parliament and with Ministers, but they too are in their infancy and need to be closely monitored. Business flood claims tend to be for loss of trade, which can be significant, and the consequences for small businesses, which might not be able to get insurance again after previous flooding, can be catastrophic. We need to get to grips with this, or bankruptcies will increase and businesses will close.

After the 2015 flooding, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that money was no object. The Government must honour that, and provide the resources needed to tackle flooding and the resilience that communities are so desperate for. Since the floods, we have been promised additional capital expenditure but unfortunately little in the way of spades in the ground. We do not have time to waste. Flooding is not going away. We need a comprehensive plan in place for every community at risk of flooding, covering the entire floodplain and the drainage basin. There is no one-size-fits-all solution; decision makers must talk to the people on the ground. Local communities have so much experience—farmers often have land knowledge that dates back generations—and it would be criminal not to use the expertise that is at our disposal. If the Government do not act immediately, we face the severe risk of communities, such as those in my constituency, becoming ghost towns.

Finally, will the Minister assure me that the necessary funds and resources will be made available, and quickly, to every community at risk? Will she also consider supporting the many excellent recommendations in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report?

Seagulls

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on securing this debate on an ongoing issue that is familiar to all of us who represent coastal communities. He made an excellent speech with some really important points for consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) spoke passionately about how the problem affects his constituents, and there were well informed and important contributions from the hon. Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas).

Gulls are clearly a real problem in many parts of the country, particularly when they are breeding, but it is also clear that there is no quick-fix solution. We need to understand bird behaviour before deciding on a final course of action. As we have heard, gulls are problematic, particularly when they are breeding and nesting. They are often doing what any parent would do if they felt threatened: they are protecting their young. Urban gulls are often just looking for a nesting site that they see as safe from predators and with a good food supply. They do not know that they are sitting on top of somebody’s house or business.

We have heard that gulls enjoy a protected status in the UK under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which means that they cannot be intentionally killed or their nests intentionally destroyed. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I am a member, notes with concern that the British gull population is in decline, so we have to look at what we can do to solve the problem without contributing to the further decline of the species.

Although there is marginal support for culling gulls, I support the RSPB’s position—and, it seems, that of the majority of hon. Members in the debate—that that should not be the immediate way forward. We should instead look at non-harmful deterrents as a priority. As Natural England has said, many problems associated with gulls can be avoided by taking preventive measures. Hon. Members have talked about the nets and wires that can be installed to deter nesting on buildings, and the need for better food storage and waste facility areas so that the food waste is kept secure and away from gulls. The public also needs to be discouraged from deliberately feeding them.

Gulls live for a long time and are intelligent and have good memories, so they have quickly learned that humans are a reliable source of food. We need to ensure that food is not just dropped and left—people need to be encouraged not to litter. We also need to ensure, as several hon. Members from Cornwall have mentioned, that there are secure bins or sacks in which food can be disposed of.

This problem has been going on for an incredibly long time, and although we could have an annual debate, we just need to crack on with tackling it. It is time that the Government gave councils that are dealing with this problem the resources that they need to manage the gull populations and solutions properly.

We have also heard about noise. Some areas have trialled high-frequency noise emitters—they are not too dissimilar to the Mosquito devices that have been used in areas with high levels of anti-social behaviour—but the results have been mixed. Local residents who can hear the noise have complained that their lives have been blighted and made a misery, so that solution clearly cannot be used everywhere.

As mentioned by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, one way of potentially deterring gull populations is through the use of birds such as hawks or falcons. In 2009, an interesting study was conducted by the Scottish Government in Dumfries, just across the Solway from my constituency. I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the Harris hawks that we use on the parliamentary estate to keep down the number of pigeons. It seems that peregrine falcons could play a role in combating certain species of gulls, not by attacking or killing them, but simply by scaring them away. A humane system of deterrence such as that should be encouraged.

As we have heard, this is a serious health and safety issue. Last summer, in Maryport in my constituency, residents were surprised to see a notice come through their door saying that their post could not be delivered due to seagulls.

[John Woodcock]

How did the notice get through the door?

[Oliver Colvile]

If I may ask the same question, Mr Streeter, how did the leaflets get through the door, then?

[Sue Hayman]

My understanding is that the seagulls were extremely aggressive. I do not know how the postman managed to get the notice through the door. That is an extremely good question, and I shall have go back and find the answer—perhaps he put it in a different box. Anyway, the Royal Mail in Maryport managed the problem by getting a local falconer, Mike Morrison, to offer up his services and his hawks and successfully scare the gulls off so that the postmen could return and deliver the local mail.

Meanwhile, we have also had a problem with dive-bombing gulls on an industrial estate in Carlisle. Local businesses have got together to deploy an army of fake hawks to stop the gulls from nesting on their roofs. They report that it is working so far, so perhaps local councils could support that approach, providing that the Government give them the funding that they desperately need to buy the fake hawks.

Does the Minister agree that a cull is not the way forward and that we really need to look instead at non-harmful deterrence methods? Much has been said in this debate about the role that local authorities play in managing the problem, but they will only succeed if they are given the funding that they need to implement whichever method they believe is right for their area. We have heard a lot of good ideas that could solve the problem, but as we know, councils are seriously strapped for cash at the moment. Residents and businesses are being left to fork out their own money or put up with the situation.

I would really like to hear from the Minister how the Government plan to ensure that local authorities are given the financial support they need to tackle the problems caused by gulls. We have heard that the former Prime Minister David Cameron’s suggestion of a way forward was a big conversation, but I reiterate other Members present in saying that now is the time for action.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind her to leave a few moments for Oliver Colvile to sum up at the end.

Tree Planting

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies). This has been a very interesting debate, and his opening remarks set the scene perfectly as to why tree planting is important and why we need to plant more trees. He mentioned the amount of wood that we import, how important it is that we become sustainable as a country, and the importance of planting trees for climate change, which several hon. Members mentioned. He also mentioned the construction industry and why it is important that we grow our own timber to make our homes more beautiful. I congratulate Hackney Council in this regard. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but it is the first council in England to promote timber in its planning policy for building.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made some excellent points. He requested more support for farmers and landowners when applying for the grants, which is really needed, and I hope the Minister will give us some positive thoughts on that. He also mentioned that we must not forget we have to plant in urban areas as well. Before I became a Member of this House, I worked with a charity called Trees for Cities, which does great work; again, it would be good to see its work also supported. The hon. Members from Scotland who are here today talked powerfully about the importance of forestry to Scotland’s economy and their cultural heritage.

I want to focus on the issue raised specifically by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) about the importance of tree planting in managing flooding. I was also pleased to hear her talk about red squirrels; we have red squirrels in our garden, and it is great that we are supporting those through tree planting as well. Obviously, flood prevention is particularly important in my constituency. Hon. Members know about the terrible floods that we had in Cumbria just a year ago. This is something that—I will mention my husband as well—my husband and I have taken a very personal interest in. The River Marron flows through our land for half a mile, and the Marron goes into the Derwent, which caused a lot of the damage in Cockermouth and further downstream. We have been talking and working with the Rivers Trust and the Woodland Trust, and we are having 500 trees planted on our land—400 on the land and 100 along the banks of the river—to try to help with the kind of work that hon. Members have talked about.

Since I became a Member of Parliament, and more recently the shadow floods Minister, people have contacted me to talk about the particular role that tree planting has in slowing down the flow of water to help to combat levels of flooding. Somebody gave me a really interesting study from North America that was published in 2012. It found that deforestation in snowy regions at least doubled, and potentially quadrupled, the number of large floods occurring along rivers. There is a lot of really good scientific evidence out there that we can look at.

The Forestry Commission has also set out four ways in which trees can reduce flood risk. The first is by evaporating more water than other, shorter vegetation— coniferous trees are better at doing that, so we have to look at those as well as at deciduous. Woodland soils retain water better than soil under grass, which slows floodwater down before it gets to the rivers themselves. Trees alongside the rivers create more drag—we have had some trees placed to create drag in our river, to slow down the flow of water—and also help with the problems of soil erosion and the movement of sediment.

The deadwood along the rivers can play a vital role: it is obviously good for wildlife, but it can also slow down the flow of the waters. People often talk about concerns about deadwood because it can come loose, get clogged under bridges, dam and cause problems; but surveys of the River Kent in Cumbria found that the benefits outweigh the risks as long as the rivers are managed properly. That is really important; we do not always manage our rivers properly and we need to look at that very carefully. Obviously, the location of tree planting is important. We have to make sure that everything is done in the right place.

Will the Minister say what plans the Department has to roll out more of the natural flood prevention measures? Those are very low in cost when compared to paying afterwards for the cost of damage that floods have caused. As has been said, the Government have missed their tree planting target and Confor recently calculated that they are seven years behind schedule. The Woodland Trust also says that tree planting is now at an all-time low. Members have talked about how many more trees the Government have pledged to plant, and I understand that the Conservatives’ last manifesto included a pledge about tree planting. I urge the Minister to turn this very disappointing situation around and to do whatever she can to encourage more tree planting to push forward that manifesto promise. We really need to get back on track. If, in her response, the Minister could give us some idea about how we are going to get on track and meet those targets, I am sure that all hon. Members who have spoken today would be pleased to hear that we are going to make some progress, because we really need to.

UK Fishing Industry

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on securing this debate. Much of it has focused on the challenges and opportunities of Brexit, and we have had knowledgeable and often passionate contributions from the hon. Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson).

My constituency, Workington, includes a stretch of the Solway firth. There are around 75 fishing boats landing about 4,000 tonnes of fish annually. We have a fish processing plant in Maryport which recently reopened, helped by a grant from Allerdale Council, creating 60 jobs. In 2012 a report examined the demand for and ability to supply locally caught fish and seafood to the hospitality sector. I am sure that many colleagues have visited Cumbria and will be aware of that sector’s importance to our economy. Last year, the Cumbrian Fisheries label was launched, with the idea that if fish are sold locally, the greater the profit will be for the fishermen and the processors. Backing the scheme are several businesses in my constituency, including the Maryport Fishing Co-operative, the award-winning Fyne Fish and the Trout Hotel in Cockermouth.

This Saturday is Small Business Saturday. What better way to support the local community than to go down to the high street and purchase locally caught fresh fish? Cumbria is famous for its sausages. I see no reason why it cannot also be famous for its fish and shellfish. I can personally recommend Solway potted shrimp.

It is important that the Government make headway on the future of our trading relationships. As about 80% of the British catch is exported, primarily to the EU, Brexit negotiations need to take into account the impact that a less-than-ideal trade deal could have on the industry.

I am concerned that although DEFRA and the Marine Management Organisation have experienced severe budget cuts, their responsibilities will only increase. How will the Government ensure they are properly resourced? How many additional staff are being recruited? The looming regulatory deficit represents a big challenge. A streamlined DEFRA will have its work cut out because of the sheer amount of secondary legislation that we will need to replace European legislation.

Members on both sides of the House have talked about the shortcomings of the common fisheries policy, but we must recognise that recent reforms have had positive impacts, including improved sustainability and a stop in the decline of some stocks. What financial drivers will the Government put in place as a successor to the CFP while keeping in mind environmental protections and fishing business sustainability? How will we ensure that we have an effective maximum sustainable yield and that the other objectives of the CFP are incorporated into UK legislation? How do the Government intend to make up the shortfall in the funding for the fishing sector that is currently derived from the European maritime and fisheries fund?

We have to work to align our fisheries regulations with those of our EU neighbours to stop us from returning to a situation of competitive overfishing. Although we have the opportunity to look at quotas and access arrangements, it simply is not the case that we will get exactly what we want—as the Minister knows, we will get what we can negotiate. I am worried about the regulatory vacuum that we might have between our getting rid of the CFP and having our own regulations in place. What is DEFRA’s plan for that transitional period? The Minister has talked before about the unfairness of the current reciprocal access arrangements, under which other EU countries benefit more from access to our waters than we do from access to theirs, so what does he regard as a fair reciprocal arrangement?

We must think carefully about trying to maintain tariff-free access for fishery exports to the EU, and we must not be surprised if the EU then tries to bargain for increased access to UK waters. Norway is in the EEA and has a number of fisheries interests in the UK, particularly processing plants and aquaculture. If we leave the EEA and the customs union, what will that mean for companies exporting to the EU, which is where most of our high-value fish go? Is there not a danger that those companies will up sticks to avoid tariffs? How can we secure British jobs?

We must seek to preserve conservation measures established under EU law. The sustainability of fish stocks has to be a priority. I support the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) about sea bass. How can we have continued commercial netting of a stock that is below critical levels? The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about recognising scientific advice when looking at long-term sustainable fishing. I implore the Minister to ensure that future policy does exactly that, taking advice from not only ICES but CEFAS. What key environmental protections will DEFRA ensure are upheld in the negotiation process? The future of sustainable European fish stocks and the long-term livelihoods of thousands of people depend on that.

Finally, on Brexit, we must remember that building and maintaining good relations with colleagues is important—for the Minister and his European counterparts at the upcoming Council, but also across parties. I am willing to work constructively and closely with him to ensure we end up with the best deal possible for our fisheries so that we can secure a sustainable, long-term future for our industry.