UK Bee Population

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) on initiating the debate, in which we have heard excellent contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for bringing his serious expertise to the debate; it is much appreciated.

We have heard that scientific evidence about the harmful impact on pollinators and the persistence of the pesticide in habitats has been growing for some time. In 2012, DEFRA said that England had seen the greatest decline in the diversity of wild bees anywhere in Europe. We have also heard that, in June, the results of the field study on the impact of neonicotinoids were published and that that has provided the most conclusive evidence yet of the impact of neonicotinoids on pollinators. We know that farmers had concerns that decisions were being based on lab tests rather than field tests, so it is good that the recent studies were field tests and have put that argument and those concerns to rest.

We also know that when neonicotinoids are used on one crop, residues of the pesticide can be found right across the wider habitat. That contaminates pollinators’ food sources and not only the specific crops where the neonicotinoids are used. Wider investigations have shown that neonicotinoids can persist in soil for many years. The pesticide is taken up by flowering weeds or flowering crops, which can cause even more damaging exposure for the pollinators.

I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s support, now, for a total ban on the use of neonicotinoids. A ban was in the Labour party’s 2017 manifesto, and we are proud to have led the way on this critical issue. Earlier this year, I wrote to the Secretary of State requesting clarification as to why Conservative MEPs were frustrating votes at EU level on a ban on neonicotinoids. Can the Minister provide a guarantee that the position announced by the Secretary of State is confirmed and that Conservative representatives at EU level will now hold that position and not undermine any further votes on neonicotinoids?

It is clear from this debate that we are all in no doubt about the importance of pollinators to our food supply, biodiversity and economy. We need to do more to encourage people to take up beekeeping and to have more interest in that. We have bees on our land. They are not ours; we do not look after them, but because we have the land and the right conditions, we have encouraged others, who have the time and the interest, to come and look after hives on our land. We could all encourage more of that.

We could also encourage local authorities to do more work. In Plymouth, the then Labour council introduced city-wide bee corridors. That simple act has helped bee numbers to increase in the city. It involved sowing grass verges with wild flower seeds. The different British wild flowers produce fabulous roadside views for people who go down there, but also the habitat that bees need. That is an example of the creative interventions that local authorities can make.

Over the weekend, the Secretary of State highlighted the economic contribution of pollinators, citing estimates of £400 million to £680 million being added every year to agricultural productivity. However, we need to take into full consideration the importance of pesticides for farmers. Farmers have to protect their crops and livelihoods from threats throughout the growing season. How do the Government propose to work with farmers to develop and invest in alternatives to neonicotinoids? We know that it is not just pesticides that pose a risk to pollinator populations, but temperature changes and increased extreme weather incidents caused by climate change. I am therefore delighted that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has today announced Labour’s intention to factor climate change into financial forecasts and policy making. That should enhance the future sustainability of farming and safeguard future pollinator populations.

I would like to finish with a quote from Professor David Goulson of the University of Sussex:

“Insects make up about two-thirds of all life on Earth”,

but

“there has been some kind of horrific decline. We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects…everything is going to collapse.”

The case for a permanent ban is now unassailable, and I welcome the developing political consensus on the matter.

Puppy Smuggling

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. This is a really important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing it. We have had important contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber. I would like to specifically congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on Rocky winning the Westminster dog of the year show. I was there, and he was absolutely fabulous. I congratulate all Members who brought their dogs along.

It has been said that Britain has the best animal welfare in the world. The last Labour Government’s Animal Welfare Act 2006 was undoubtedly a landmark piece of legislation, but if we want to maintain our position as the world leader when it comes to animal health and welfare, we need to build on the foundations laid by that Act. As any MP will tell you, animal welfare is the single biggest issue that comes into our postbags, by a long way. There is a huge public appetite for robust action to improve the lives of animals and to strengthen animal protections in our laws. We are a nation of animal lovers and we want to see the animals here well loved and living happy lives. Puppy smuggling is just one of many serious animal welfare issues we read about in our postbags, and I have received hundreds of emails about it.

It is obvious that the humane treatment of animals should be a benchmark for a civilised society, and we as parliamentarians must send out a strong message that the illegal importation of puppies is a cruel practice that must stop. The animal and plant health agency, alongside the Dogs Trust, has done a lot of crucial work to tackle the smuggling of puppies, and that is to be welcomed.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Perhaps one thing we should do as part of the efforts is to raise awareness among the public that they are able to adopt dogs from animal sanctuaries, and that abandoned and maltreated dogs can also make incredible pets.

[Sue Hayman]

That is an incredibly important point. One good thing about the Westminster dog of the year show was that there were dogs there for rehoming. That was very important.

It is time for the Government to act on this. We need to look at how to drive up standards for online advertising and raise awareness of rogue pet dealers among the general public. We also need to ensure we have a robust pet travel scheme in operation. I am a dog owner, and I have long believed that we must do more to block wholesale puppy imports that abuse the pet travel scheme and ensure that all puppies have legitimate documentation. One thing that came out of the Dogs Trust’s work was that chips were being put in collars and then reused. We need to be very clear about the tricks being played.

Government agencies need the resources to tackle puppy smuggling by enforcing the current legislation. We need to ensure we have sufficient border guards, and there needs to be greater international co-operation between police forces, to crack down on this problem internationally. I also would like to see the Government commit to banning the third-party sale of dogs, which would help to drive down demand for smuggled puppies. Dogs should be available only from licensed, regulated breeders or approved rehoming organisations. Unfortunately, the current legislation does not protect the welfare of all dogs or the interests of all consumers, so the only solution to protect the welfare of puppies is to ban third-party sales entirely.

International studies have shown 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. As we know, puppies continue to be bred in large numbers in central and eastern Europe and in Ireland, sometimes in horrific conditions. Responsible breeders do not sell puppies through third parties. The third-party licensed pet shop market depends on and sustains that 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, as we have heard, far exceed the penalties. Availability may artificially inflate demand, so reducing the supply of cheap, poorly bred puppies from dealers and smugglers will promote a more responsible buying culture.

When we bought our dog, Max, another chocolate labrador, we knew how to find a responsible breeder, but not everyone does. It is critical that we protect the public from irresponsible breeders and help people to make responsible purchases, because animal welfare must come before profit. Last week, the Minister said that prospective puppy buyers should always insist on seeing the puppy interacting with its mum in the place where it was born. That advice is inconsistent with the ongoing legality of third-party sales, as it concedes that neither animals nor consumers can be protected by the regulations imposed on the industry.

I do not think it too ambitious to want to move on and to ask the Government to do more. Animal welfare must not be swept under the carpet or undercut, so I ask the Minister to commit today to continuing to show his understanding of the needs of puppies and do everything he can to stamp out this appalling trade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

As my hon. Friend points out, this significant barrier will substantially reduce the risk of flooding for almost 15,000 homes and nearly 1,000 businesses. He is right that I have received the report; the findings are now being considered by lawyers. This legal due diligence must be completed before I can make any final decision on granting the order. In the meantime, I can assure him that the Environment Agency is making all necessary preparations to start construction as soon as possible, subject to securing funding from the Treasury, which I am confident of.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

In the referendum last year, people did not vote for dangerous levels of pollution and the weakening of environmental protections. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to make worthy speeches about a green Brexit, but as it stands, the Government’s repeal Bill makes this an impossibility. Will he now admit that the omission of the “polluter pays” principle and other environmental protections are a fundamental flaw, and will he work with me and other colleagues to guarantee the strongest possible protections for our environment as we leave the EU?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. It is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that while there have undoubtedly been aspects of our EU membership, such as the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy, that have been harmful to the environment, there have been welcome environmental protections, which we have helped to develop while we have been in the EU. I want to work with her, as I am working with others, to ensure that people can guarantee that the protections that they value stay in place.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments. Clearly, many of our environmental protections come from Europe. Another victim of the repeal Bill that I would like to draw his attention to is the precautionary principle, which sets a benchmark to protect the environment from policy and developmental proposals that would do irreparable harm. Is his commitment to me now therefore a commitment to working cross-party to ensure that these vital environmental protections are transferred into EU law as promised, or is he happy for the EU to reclaim its reputation as the dirty man of Europe?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady perhaps made a slip of the tongue there, because I think she is probably worried about the UK being the dirty man—or indeed the dirty creature—of Europe. In short, the principles to which she alludes are valuable interpretive principles. We need to make sure they are consistent with the application of UK common law, but yes I would like to work with her and others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We believe that there should be careful risk-based assessment when it comes to regulation. We also have a great opportunity to change the culture of regulation. The reality of the common agricultural policy, as it exists now, is that there are far too many complex rules against which farmers are judged. We have an opportunity to simplify that and have a much more effective system going forward.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

The National Farmers Union says that the number of seasonal farm workers coming to the UK has dropped by 17%, and a report published this week states that

“the silence from Government on the labour question is astonishing.”

Food production, processing and packaging rely heavily on migrant labour—the Office for National Statistics states that they make up 41% of the workforce. Why are the Government ignoring the industry’s warnings? Will they compensate for the loss of produce as a direct result of this complacency, and will they ensure that the food manufacturing industry continues to have access to the workforce it needs?

[George Eustice]

There is no silence from the Government on this issue—indeed, there was a debate in Westminster Hall just last week where we discussed this issue in detail. We have the seasonal agricultural workers scheme transition group, which monitors seasonal labour requirements. It met in March, it had informal discussions last week, and it will meet again later this week. In addition, the Home Office intends to commission the Migration Advisory Committee to do a piece of work on the labour needs of this country after we leave the EU.

[Sue Hayman]

Well, that all sounds marvellous, doesn’t it? So why does the report say we have a looming food crisis if everything is under control? It says we could actually run out of some foods after Brexit. One of the authors, Professor Tim Lang, accuses the Government of a

“serious policy failing on an unprecedented scale”

for their handling of the food security situation. The Secretary of State is notoriously dismissive of expert advice, but does he accept the findings of this report, and will he meet me and industry representatives to urgently discuss the food crisis before us?

[George Eustice]

The issue with that report is that it has not looked at the issues as closely as we have in DEFRA. We have been studying all these issues at tremendous length. The truth about food security is that it depends on increasing food production globally at a sustainable level and on open markets around the world, and those are challenges whether we are in or out of the EU. There is nothing about leaving the EU that will affect our food security.

Air Quality Strategy

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the publication date of the Government’s air quality strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)]

The Government are committed to making sure that ours is the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. As part of that, I am deeply committed personally to the importance of ensuring that we have clean air. Since 2011, the Government have announced more than £2 billion to help bus operators to upgrade their fleets, to support the development and take-up of low-emission vehicles, to reduce pollution from vehicles such as refuse trucks and fire engines, and to promote the development of clean alternative fuels. In addition, in the autumn statement we announced a further £290 million to support electric vehicles, low-emission buses and taxis, and alternative fuels.

Our actions have enabled the UK to make significant progress on improving its air quality since 2010. We now have lower emissions of the five key pollutants: volatile organic compounds, sulphur dioxide, ammonia, particulates, and nitrogen oxides. However, because of the failure of Euro vehicle emission standards to deliver expected improvements in air quality, the UK is among 17 European countries, including France and Germany, that are not yet meeting EU emissions targets for nitrogen dioxide in parts of some towns and cities.

We are taking strong action to remedy that. Since last November, my Department has worked jointly with the Department for Transport to update the Government’s national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide. We have updated the analytical base for the plan to reflect new evidence following the Volkswagen scandal and the failure of the EU’s regulatory regime to deliver expected improvements on emissions. The plan adapts to these new circumstances by setting out a framework for action.

Following long-standing precedent, we have entered the period of sensitivity that precedes elections. In accordance with the guidance covering both local and general elections, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office has told us that it would not be appropriate to launch the consultation and publish the air quality plan during this time. The Government have therefore applied to the High Court for a short extension of the deadline for publishing the national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide, in order to comply with pre-election propriety rules. The Government seek to publish a draft plan by 30 June and a final plan by 15 September. The application will be considered by the Court.

[Sue Hayman]

Nearly 40 million people in Britain live in areas with illegal levels of air pollution. Two thousand schools and nurseries are close to roads with damaging levels of fumes, and NHS experts estimate that poor air quality contributes to 40,000 premature deaths every year. The situation has gone from bad to worse on this Government’s watch, and has escalated into what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee calls a “public health emergency”. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is indeed a public health emergency?

Given the gravity of the situation and the fact that the Secretary of State has known about today’s High Court deadline for months, why did she choose to request a further delay to the publication of her air quality plan at 7 o’clock on Friday night? Will she clarify whether she had in fact already applied for an extension before the election was called? It is unacceptable for her to hide behind the election to delay publishing her plans. Cabinet Office rules are clear that purdah is not an excuse to delay acting on vital public health matters. Will she confirm that the plans are ready for publication? If she agrees that this is a public health emergency, why the delay?

Are not the Government doing everything that they can to avoid scrutiny because they are missing their own commitments, have no strategy and yet again want to kick this issue into the long grass? How can we trust the right hon. Lady’s Government to maintain air quality standards after we leave the EU when they have done everything possible to avoid scrutiny on existing standards and had to be dragged through the courts?

If the Government fail to publish their plan today, within the first 30 days of a Labour Administration, we will. Only a Labour Government will legislate for a new clean air Act setting out how to tackle the air pollution that damages the lives of millions, but this Conservative Government continue shamefully to shirk their legal responsibilities and are putting the health of millions at risk.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think that all Members right across this House agree that air quality is a significant concern. I have already set out some of the strong actions that this Government have taken, in spending £2 billion since 2011, to try to improve the situation.

The hon. Lady is exactly right: we have our draft air quality plan for NO₂ ready. She asked why we have a late extension, and I can absolutely explain that to her: in the course of developing our draft plan, it became clear that local authorities would have to play a central role in delivering the final air quality plan, so the Government initially sought to defer publication of the plan and the launch of the consultation on it until after the purdah period for local authority elections. Since that application was lodged, the Prime Minister has called a general election, and a further period of purdah commenced on 21 April. As the hon. Lady will know, Governments normally seek to avoid launching consultation exercises during purdah periods. It is absolutely vital that we get this done, and our intention is to publish the plan on 30 June. She says that a Labour Administration would publish such a plan within 30 days, but that would actually be later than the date on which this Government intend to publish it.

I want to make it very clear that we have now entered a period during which we are strongly advised not to publish consultations. We are therefore trying to put in place a very short extension, which we do not believe will make a difference to the implementation of our plans, while at the same time safeguarding our democracy.

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.