Insect Population

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is an expert on the subject in this place. She is absolutely right. We and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs need to do more work on that.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this hugely important debate on one of the biggest issues we face. The Agriculture Bill, which is going through the House, provides an opportunity to take some action on the issue. Will he join me in urging all hon. Members to support new clauses 10 and 11, which would begin to address it by limiting the application of pesticides in agriculture and beyond?

[Alex Sobel]

That is a timely intervention, because later I will certainly be looking at, and potentially signing, those two new clauses, which stand in the hon. Gentleman’s name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely, and that is something else we could include in the environment Bill.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of the environment-both the opportunities we have to get it right and the risks of getting it wrong. However, does he agree that the opportunity inherent in replacing the disastrous common agricultural policy—it effectively pays £1 billion to people simply for owning land, no matter what they do with it—with a system in which that money is conditional upon delivering public goods is even bigger? That is a massive part of the solution, because all the initiatives that the hon. Gentleman has described and some of those that other Members have described, would be rewarded through that new system of payments. Of all the things that have been discussed today, that is potentially the biggest boon for our biodiversity. Does he agree?

[Alex Sobel]

I have supported CAP reform ever since Michael Foster resigned from the Labour Government about 15 years ago, and I still support it. However, we need to be mindful of the fact that it is not just the UK that needs to reform those practices: reform is needed across Europe, and more broadly.

After today, the Government cannot say that they were not warned about the insect Armageddon, or did not have the legislative opportunity to help ensure that the UK is not on the back foot when it comes to avoiding this potential disaster for our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

Yes, I can confirm that.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the overwhelming support for a ban on the export of live animals after we leave the European Union, and I know he has great sympathy with that position. Can he confirm that under the terms of the withdrawal agreement that would still be possible?

[David Rutley]

Yes, and we have a call for evidence on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I so enjoyed it, and the right hon. Gentleman knows how much I enjoyed it.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

T7. In many ways, the UK has led the agenda on wildlife protection. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would enhance that reputation if, like France, the Netherlands and Australia, we banned the import of so-called hunting trophies?

[Michael Gove]

I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I find the idea of trophy hunting a difficult one to contemplate as anyone’s idea of a wise use of time or resources. However, it is the case that the current regime allows trophies to be imported, provided that there is no impact on the sustainability of species. We keep these rules constantly under review and I am grateful to him, to Members across this House and to non-governmental organisations for keeping a spotlight on the issue because it is one that troubles many of us.

Ivory Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman]

If the right hon. Gentleman would like an annualised report and would like to discuss with the other place how that can be pursued after he has supported our proposal, I am sure that that is something that can be considered.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Of course there is merit in studying whether or not these measures work, but new clause 2 asks a very narrow question. Ivory is just one of many illegally traded products. There are all kinds of forestry products, as well as pangolins—1 million a year are traded. Rhino horns are traded to the detriment of that species. The ban is just one of many hundreds of initiatives that tackle the illegal wildlife trade. Why focus on one of hundreds of products, and one strand among hundreds of strands of work that we need to tackle the illegal wildlife trade? It seems reductionist, and probably not the best use of money or time.

[Sue Hayman]

In the same spirit, surely the hon. Gentleman would support new clause 1, which expands the scope of species that are covered. We could say that the Government have a narrow focus in looking only at elephants.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I look forward to hearing the Minister speak and to a commitment that the ban will extend to other species. My concern about new clause 1 is twofold. First, I am not a lawyer, but I share worries, based on what I have heard, that we might unsettle the Bill by making it susceptible to judicial challenge. Secondly, the new clause looks only at CITES species that bear ivory, but there are other species that bear ivory. The warthog would be decimated if it became the legal option for people who wanted ivory, and the mammoth is a concern. Yes, I know that the mammoth is extinct, but it has become an enormous source of laundered ivory. There is a legitimate mammoth trade, as the hon. Lady knows, and it is used as an excuse or opportunity for smugglers to trade elephant ivory under that cover. That is a clumsy way of putting it, but it is a loophole that has been exploited mercilessly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he makes the commitments that I am looking forward to, will make a commitment to extend the ban, subject to consultation, to all forms of ivory.

[Sue Hayman]

It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Bill Committee, because he could have supported our amendment 12, which proposed much of what he has just said.

Looking at how we tackle the illegal trade effectively, hon. Members will agree that we need international co-operation, as I have said. In debate and in Committee, hon. Members have said that we need to look at how we work effectively with the Department for International Development in the communities where poaching takes place. Poverty and corruption drive the trade. We have seen in recent days a terrible example of that with the poaching of Bella, a 20-year-old white rhino with a young calf. Bella was dehorned in an effort to make her less of a target a week before she was shot dead by poachers at Kragga Kamma game park in the Eastern Cape. However, hunters sliced her face to extract the small amount of horn that remained. The grisly discovery of the mutilated carcase of a dehorned rhino, killed for less than one centimetre of horn stump, lying next to her calf underscores the depths of South Africa’s poaching problem. It also underscores the fact that poachers kill for very little ivory, which is why it is important to extend the scope of the Bill.

Will Travers, director of the Born Free Foundation, told the Bill Committee:

“In my view, there is a common linkage with our clear objectives in overseas development, which are to deal with poverty and to provide opportunity...If we are not investing in the protected areas where elephants and other species live, we are not doing a great service either to the species we wish to protect or to the people who live literally downstream from those protected areas.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 9, Q12.]

International leadership and commitment are needed from DEFRA. I sincerely hope that the Minister will agree to support new clause 2, which would make meaningful the commitment to international action on the illegal ivory trade.

Government amendments 3 and 4 bear an uncanny resemblance to amendment 12, which Labour tabled in Committee, as I mentioned. Labour does not seek to oppose the Government amendments, as it is proper and right that the Secretary of State should have the discretion to include additional species, whether they are CITES-listed or not, at a later date depending on the evidence at the time.

I would like to make clear the difference between Government amendments 3 and 4 and Labour’s new clause 1. They are entirely different and in no way contradict one another. Government amendments 3 and 4 seek to provide powers for the Secretary of State to add CITES and non-CITES listed species to the definition in future if the Secretary of State so wishes. The amendment does not compel or require the Government to do so and it does not specify a timeframe. It is therefore important that both Government amendments 3 and 4, as well as new clause 1, are adopted today to protect the most at risk CITES species as a priority within the next 12 months, as well as providing the Secretary of State with the discretionary powers to include species at an future time if necessary.

This House is united in its determination to clamp down on the ivory trade. Labour’s 2017 election manifesto made a clear commitment to a full ban on ivory sales, and I welcome the Bill today. It is an important step forward in protecting elephants and starting to tackle this appalling trade. The Committee stage was conducted in a spirit of working hard and being constructive together. I recommend both Labour’s new clauses and the Government amendments to the House. We need to close any loopholes in the Bill that might further endanger the walrus, narwhal, sperm whale, killer whale and hippo. I have tried hard to work constructively with the Minister. I ask that he take our concerns and our new clauses very seriously. I urge the whole House to support Labour’s new clauses 1 and 2 today.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the fact that the Government amendment does not limit the animals that may be covered in the future simply to those registered as protected in CITES. I believe that they were won over by the excellent representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made very powerfully in Committee, when she said that we should look at this through the prism not just of protecting endangered species but of our moral obligation. We ought to be driving out poaching and the hunting of animals for the use of their body parts because it is morally reprehensible, whether the animals are endangered or not. I am grateful that the Government have taken that on board.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am taking a leap here, but I do not think that any Conservative will have disagreed with anything that the hon. Lady has said. It seems to me that the only real difference between the Opposition and the Government—and this is a question, not a statement—is a matter of process. The aspirations are almost identical. The Government’s commitment is to go further than new clause 1 by going beyond the CITES species, but on that there is no disagreement between the two parties. The only issue, really, is whether the Opposition are willing to trust the Government to honour the pledge that we have just heard from the Minister, but that is it. This is not about the issue; it is a matter of trust and process. Does the hon. Lady agree with that?

[Anna Turley]

Absolutely. I think the principle of trust is important, and I hope we would support the Government on that, but for me this is about timing. The issue is not whether it will happen, but the fact that it could be six months or a year before the Bill is passed. In the meantime, especially if the Bill proceeds successfully and is widely heralded, there will be a great deal of awareness about the crackdown on the ivory trade in this country. What concerns me is the knock-on effect in the next six months to a year on the trade in hippo teeth, which could be a direct consequence of the Bill. I therefore do not want any delay caused by the wait for secondary legislation. In principle, however, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are going in the same direction.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point, and one that is close to my heart. My private Member’s Bill to increase the punishment for animal cruelty was published in December, but we are still waiting for it to come before this place. There is a huge backlog in legislation, and I think it is dangerous to wait.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I apologise for intervening again, but may I take up that last point? Subject to consultation—and it is inconceivable that those consulted would oppose the proposals; we have to assume that they would pass the test of public opinion—these changes could be introduced very quickly and easily by means of a statutory instrument. This does not require primary legislation; it would be a very simple procedure, and the measure would go through unopposed.

[Anna Turley]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but, conversely, I do not understand what his problem is with our new clause. We want to make the change here and now, and I have heard no sustained or reasonable explanation of why we need to delay.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Turley]

I will take one more intervention, but then I must make some progress.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I will not support the new clause because I think that the Government’s commitment goes further, and, fundamentally, I have no reason to disbelieve the promise that the Minister has just made. The Government will consult on extending the ban, and I have no doubt that the British people will respond to that consultation properly and positively. The statutory instrument will then be introduced. There is no reason for any Conservative Member to question what I think has been an impeccable track record on the part of DEFRA over the last year.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman is right—the principle of the Government’s amendment, which broadens the CITES endangered species definition, is important and we support it—but I do not understand why he cannot support both. They are not mutually exclusive. We would really like to press on with this today, and there does not seem to be any reason for hesitation—other than work and effort, I am afraid.

Finally, let me say something about resources. In Committee, I was shocked by the lack of resources to back up the Bill. The Border Force CITES team at Heathrow has only 10 members of staff, although it is currently dealing with more than 1,000 seizures a year. The police National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 members of staff, despite dealing with all forms of wildlife crime from deer poaching to thefts of birds’ eggs, and no funding has been allocated to it beyond 2020. I think it reckless and irresponsible for the Secretary of State to introduce the Bill without having secured or committed resources to ensure that it can be properly enforced. There is a danger that this important Bill will be rendered hollow and unenforceable, and I hope that the Government are working to address that and give us some funding commitments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I am being told via a sedentary intervention that that is not ivory. This is an interesting issue, but surely the good point about Government amendment 3 is that it is very widely drafted, so that a lot of species and a lot of animals could be included. I think that that is a good thing. What the Opposition new clause is proposing, and what we were originally proposing in our letter, is actually narrower and less effective.

I shall sit down now, because it will be much more interesting for the House to hear what the Minister has to say, but this information is on the DEFRA website, and if we could get a statutory instrument out and get started on consulting on the day of Royal Assent, that would be the most rapid method. I think we all agree that we want to give the widest possible protection to the widest number of species, and that seems to be the right route to take.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I want to thank and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for having taken this issue from somewhere near the bottom of the agenda four years ago and catapulting it to the top at the first illegal wildlife trade conference in 2014. That was really seismic, and it moved the dial on this issue unlike anything that had gone before. Does he agree that the 2018 conference in October will be an opportunity to go further still, not just by demonstrating our own commitment but by getting other key countries—particularly Asian countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, as well as members of the European Union—to make the same commitment that we are making here in this House today? This needs to be a global challenge, not simply a British one.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. It would be invidious of me not to mention my two other Cabinet colleagues at the time. One is now the right hon. Lord Hague of Richmond, and when I came back from Lewa in Kenya, he was as sharp as a tack and immediately got the point of the problem. DEFRA and the Foreign Office worked extremely closely to put the conference together. I also want to give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who was really helpful from the DFID point of view. She saw the necessity for long-term sustainable economic activity in these areas, where there is a real danger of the value of wildlife not being appreciated. The advantage that I saw in Lewa, which I touched on at Second Reading, is that having rangers and properly protected wildlife creates a virtuous circle by bringing stability to the cattle industry, where the locals have been poaching each other’s cattle for centuries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned the conference, and he was right to say that it is vital to get the Bill through in time for that. I went to the FCO a couple of days ago, and I was delighted to see the preparations for the conference. More than 70 countries have been asked so far, which is marvellous. I think we had 42 countries at the previous one. It is really important to get across how much co-operation there is between all sorts of countries that we could not possibly expect to be co-operating so closely. When I was in Moscow, the Minister there stressed how well the programmes with the Chinese Government were going on protecting the snow leopards in the Amur mountains. We got co-operation across the board at the conference, which was a unique event, and I very much hope that this autumn’s conference here will have a similar boost and a similar impact. However, we can only go to it and look people in the eye if we have got this legislation through.

Ivory Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I strongly endorse much of what he said. This Bill is pure good news, which is a very rare thing in Parliament, from my short experience. I thank the Secretary of State for being true to his word and actually delivering the Bill, having promised that he would do so.

The situation today is desperate. As we have heard, every 25 minutes, an elephant is killed for its tusks. That is 20,000 elephants a year. There has been a 90% collapse in the elephant population in the last century. Notwithstanding the leadership that this country has undoubtedly shown in recent years, the UK has historically been a very big part of the problem. According to TRAFFIC, it is estimated that the amount of ivory equivalent to that from more than 1 million elephants was transported from Africa to the UK between 1860 and 1920. As we have heard, we are still significant exporters of ivory today.

We are on the brink of losing forever the world’s most iconic species—a sentient, highly intelligent animal. And we are not doing it for any justifiable or noble reason; we are doing it so that a few people can have trinkets. It is a brutal, barbaric business that directly funds some of the most abhorrent organisations on the planet today. In the case of al-Shabaab, the organisation responsible for the appalling events in the shopping mall in Nairobi six years ago, it is estimated that 40% of its funding comes from the ivory trade. We know that, where poaching happens, it enriches the worst possible people, but it also destabilises and impoverishes whole communities.

We also know that bans work. In 1989, we had a worldwide ban approved by CITES and immediately poaching levels fell dramatically—as did, by the way, the price and the value of ivory. Tragically, 10 years later, after suspicious levels of lobbying, so-called one-off sales were allowed, and the market was flooded with legal ivory, in turn making it easier for traders to launder illegal ivory. That is exactly why the Bill that we are passing today—I very much hope we are passing it—is so important. If it is passed, we will have introduced one of the toughest ivory bans in the world.

That is fantastic news but, at the risk of sounding churlish, I want to make a few minor suggestions. First, I very much hope that the Bill is passed—I am speaking more quickly as the great Secretary of State departs the Chamber; I hope that he catches this point—before the illegal wildlife trade conference in October, because otherwise we will lack the authority that we are going to need in order to be able to ask other countries to do their bit, and we will need to ask a lot of other countries to do a great deal.

Secondly, the ban will be meaningful only if it is properly enforced, so we need to provide a long-term settlement for the National Wildlife Crime Unit, as well as resources for the CITES border force team. Thirdly, as we have heard, the Bill currently applies only to elephant ivory. The risk is that we will be displacing demand from elephants to other ivory-bearing species such as killer whales, sperm whales, walruses, hippos and narwhals, all of which are under varying levels of threat. There are only 100,000 hippos in the world today. That is staggeringly depressing. I hope that the Government will look again at including a wider range of species in the Bill.

In October, we have the IWT conference, following the first one four years ago. It is right that we should celebrate some of the good news. It is fantastic that China is closing down its state-owned carveries and banned all domestic ivory trade at the end of last year. The US has introduced a near-total ban. Hong Kong is promising to do the same. However, we must also acknowledge that the problem is growing, not shrinking, despite everything we have heard and seen over the past few years. The conference is an opportunity for us to exhibit real ambition. We need to use every lever at our disposal to encourage other countries, including the members of the European Union, to introduce their own ivory bans as a matter of urgency.

We need to tackle online crime. We heard a bit about this from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. So much of the trade has shifted online. I recommend that colleagues read a recent report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare called “Disrupt: Wildlife Cybercrime”. It paints a very bleak picture, but it also gives reason to be cheerful. In March this year, 21 companies, including Google, eBay, Facebook, Instagram, Microsoft and Alibaba, joined forces with the WWF, IFAW and TRAFFIC to launch the Global Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online. And it works: in just one year, eBay removed more than 25,000 listings from its site.

We need to expand the focus of the summit beyond ivory. In the past decade, more than 7,000 rhinos have been poached for their horns. Grey parrots are being hoovered out of the African continent at a totally unsustainable rate. Since 2000, l million pangolins have been caught and sold for meat and medicine. Fisheries are being desecrated by illegal fishing operations all around the world, plunging the communities that depend on them into desperate poverty. This is organised crime on a massive scale. That needs to be reflected in our approach.

Finally—again, I echo some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—we need to see a much greater emphasis on this and a greater level of commitment to it from the Department for International Development. It is extraordinary that just 0.4% of our vast official development assistance budget goes towards nature, let alone tackling the illegal wildlife trade. We may be part of a small club of nations honouring our commitment to meeting the UN target on overseas aid, but we are miles behind countries such as Germany, the USA and others when it comes to funding restoration of ecosystems, tackling wildlife crime and protecting the environment. There is a link between poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability—that is well established and unarguable. That must now finally be reflected in the work of DFID, not least so that the public, many of whom are very sceptical about its very existence, can buy into it and understand what it does. It is time for DFID to wake up.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I was just finishing, but I will take an intervention.

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I have ruined his peroration. Does he agree that there would be a great deal more buy-in from the public if the Department for International Development were renamed the Department for International Development and Conservation, so that people could understand that that was a key part of its mission?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I totally agree with the thought behind my hon. Friend’s question. Whether that should be the Department’s name, I do not know, but I agree with where he is coming from.

There is a clear link. One only has to look at Somalia. There is a direct link between the collapse of the fisheries off the coast of Somalia—the moment when it was declared a dead zone by the United Nations—and the rise in piracy. There were tens of thousands of families with boats and children to feed, and knowledge of the seas but no fish to catch. What did they do? They became pirates. The same is now beginning to happen around Senegal as a consequence of illegal activities by vessels from all around the world. When we destroy ecosystems, we plunge the poorest people—the people who most depend on the free services that nature provides—into hideous poverty. It is the most destabilising thing we can do, and DFID has not yet exhibited any understanding whatsoever of that well-known and well-understood phenomenon. It is time for DFID to wake up.

Fur Trade

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, I am not going to give up—but I give way.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman steps back 20 years I ask him to step forward a few months, because as we leave the European Union whatever barriers may have prevented us from raising standards on imports at the point of entry will have gone. We will be free to decide whether we want to continue to import the proceeds of one of the grimmest of human activities. I suspect that, like people who have signed the petition and the majority of those who have written to their MPs, the majority of Members would support such a move.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Tempting though it is, I do not intend to widen the debate on to other issues. I am still trying to go back 20 years, so I shall continue for the moment. At that time we were of course fortunate in having a Labour Government, and they took up the cause. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 was passed, and the then Minister of State, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Baroness Hayman, said:

“It has a simple and a clear basis. The Government believe that it is wrong to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. In the Government’s view, fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 1130.]

That was true then, and is true now for the huge numbers signing the petition—hundreds in every constituency—and for many other people, which is why it is wrong for our country to continue to support such an industry, whether it lies inside or beyond our borders.

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done both to ensure that the case for appropriate support for local government is made and to ensure, when it comes to planning, that we all take a thoughtful approach that takes the environment into account. However, there is one more thing he could do, which is to have a word with his Labour colleagues on Sheffield City Council and ask them to stop the tree felling campaign in which they are engaged. If we want to deal effectively with air pollution, one of the things we can do is to continue to ensure that trees—they not only act as a source of beauty and natural wonder but contribute to the fight against air pollution—are allowed to survive, rather than being chopped down by a council that is, I am afraid, in thrall to its own officers.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

A properly targeted diesel scrappage scheme would enable us to get rid of the most polluting cars on our streets, and if it was properly targeted it could be done without hammering those people on the lowest incomes. Will my right hon. Friend commit to pressing the Treasury to agree to such a scheme, because ultimately it will have to do so?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The success of any scrappage scheme depends on effective targeting. What we cannot do—it would be irresponsible—would be to use public money to subsidise people who are already making a choice to get rid of a particular vehicle. The deadweight cost associated with that would not be money appropriately spent. He makes the very good point that if we can effectively target such vehicles and find the individuals whom we can incentivise to move towards a green and more sustainable method of transport, we should of course support such measures. I am entirely open-minded about any proposals that might come forward, whether from metro Mayors, local authorities or others.

Sale of Puppies

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I shall come on to many of those points as my speech develops, addressing them in turn.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

One of the reasons why a number of people on the EFRA Committee chose not to back the overall recommendations of the 2016 report was the position that was then taken by the RSPCA, one of the country’s great animal welfare organisations. It has, however, since changed its position, and it now supports Lucy’s law, largely as a consequence of campaigning by people such as Marc Abraham and his team. I want to put that on the record—the reasons for the rejection have since gone, and the RSPCA is now very much on board, as I understand it.

[Martyn Day]

That point is not included in my speech, so I am grateful for the additional clarification.

Lucy’s law calls for an immediate ban on all commercial third-party sales of dogs. Commercial means sales as part of a business—for profit, not rescue. Third-party sellers are dealers; they have not bred the dogs themselves and they operate as middlemen between breeders and the buying public. Currently, the Pet Animals Act 1951 requires third-party sellers to be licensed as a pet shop, irrespective of the type of trading premises they sell from.

Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Marine Environment

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I suspect that most of us in the Chamber watched “Blue Planet II”, which reminded us—if we needed reminding—of the magic of the natural world. We were sickened by the sight of those giant, swirling plastic continents—some are bigger than France—that we have created. More than 1 million birds and 100,000 sea mammals and turtles die each year because of the plastic we continue to dump—some 12 million tonnes globally a year. We learnt that 90% of all seabirds tested last year were found to have plastic in their gut.

We have treated the environment with contempt, like a giant rubbish dump. It is hard to imagine anything more stupid. It appals all normal people. None of us wants to be part of the problem, but most of us, if not all, are, simply because it is so hard to escape plastic—it surrounds us. There are plastic cups, which have already been identified, as well as plastic water bottles, sandwich wrappers, plastic knives, forks and spoons, plastic straws and plastic stirrers, which inexplicably are still available in so many pubs. Totally unnecessarily packaging encases so much of the food and other products we buy in supermarkets.

We need to recognise and understand that as a consequence of a form of market failure. These things are used for a few seconds but last in the environment for many hundreds of years, and it is not the producers who pay the cost; we all do. This is a clear area where the market has simply failed to spot the cost of these products, which is why Government action is not only important but absolutely essential.

It has to be said that, relative to other Governments and other countries, what we have done is impressive. The 5p bag levy, which has already been mentioned, has been a tremendous success. We have banned microbeads and are therefore world leaders in that department. Our commitment to bring in the deposit return scheme for bottles and other products, and our commitments to ban straws, those absurd stirrers and plastic cotton buds are all excellent. I salute the Secretary of State for the leadership he has shown. Nevertheless, relative to the problem we face, those are baby steps, and we need much, much more.

We need to set up an urgent plan, a roadmap toward a genuine zero-waste society, and part of that must mean banning single-use plastics across the board and making it easier for the recycling business to recycle what we use. It is crazy, for example, that all local authorities have different rules on recycling. That just creates a confusing mess, and the sheer variety of plastics on offer does not help. We should be seeking to limit the range of plastics available, as Japan has done, to make it easier for things to be recycled and to make it certain that those products that are used can be recycled.

Where companies make things that cannot be recycled or repaired, they should be subject to some kind of higher tax, which can itself be recycled to pay to help those companies that are doing the right thing. That tax would, in a sense, be their paying for their own pollution footprint. Where companies are doing the right thing, we should help them. For example, the big retailers are a huge part of the problem today, but they could so easily become a huge part of the solution. The laggards need to be pressed by Government, and the pioneers need to be helped, perhaps through VAT reductions or reduced business rates, which could be paid for through those pollution taxes.

To know what is possible, we need only look at those pioneers. In January, we heard from the supermarket chain Iceland that it was to become the first major UK retailer to eliminate plastic packaging for all its own-brand products within five years. Iceland, by the way, was also the first big supermarket to ban the use of palm oil, which is devastating the world’s forests, particularly in and around Indonesia.

I will cut back what I was going to say, or I will run out of time. As has already been said, this is not just an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Treasury, but an international issue, and therefore an issue for the Department for International Development. We have already heard that 90% of waste enters the oceans via just 10 rivers. That must be a priority for DFID, and I think we would find that even those people—not myself, I have to say—who are sceptical of that Department’s existence and our commitment to spend 0.7% of our annual budget on it would find this an issue that we should prioritise. I think Government action in that regard would be met with a big round of applause.

To give one example of those rivers, I discovered this morning that the Yangtze carries 1.5 million tonnes of plastic into the ocean every year. The Thames carries just 18 tonnes. That shows the sheer scale of the problem coming from some rivers, and it should be a priority.

I have something to ask the Government to do, before I add my complaint about the plastic cups, but I am going to reverse the order. I cannot tell hon. Members how many Select Committees have written to the House authorities saying, “We’ve got to get rid of these plastic cups,” how many individual MPs have echoed those demands in their own private letters, how many people have signed petitions or how many people have joined campaigns for a plastic-free Parliament. It is absurd that the cups are still here. I cannot understand it. Is it apathy? Is it incompetence? Is it lack of interest or laziness? I do not know, but there is no justifiable reason why they should still be here today. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take that message to the highest levels.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Cosmetics Testing on Animals

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Cameron]

A majority of the public surveyed—74%—agree that much more needs to be done to find alternatives to using animals in all forms of research. That is particularly their view when it comes to animal testing.

Where policy starts, industry follows. Following the EU’s ban, growth in the non-animal methods industry surged. There are now 33 scientific facilities working on alternatives to animal testing. Internationally, that market is expected to reach $8.74 billion by 2022, up from an estimated $6.34 billion in 2017. Such growth is widely attributed to the increasing adoption of alternative methods in the cosmetics industry. I highlight to the Minister that the UK is well placed to lead that work, and even more so in a globally harmonised market.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I echo what she said about this country’s role and our proud history of taking the lead. However, is it not also the case that the UK is reported to be the biggest user of animals in experiments within the whole EU? Not all of those experiments are for serious medical conditions. For example, skin rashes account for a high proportion of animal experiments, where non-animal alternatives already exist and are considered to be more scientifically sound.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. Yes, I agree that much more needs to be done to look at non-animal testing methods in all forms of research, particularly for those types of experiment for which other methods are available. Animal testing should always be the last resort. I chair the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, and just the other month we heard about the 400-odd dogs tested—a figure that was reported to me as in Hansard. I was then told that the number had not been reported accurately to me and that it was more likely to be 4,000 across the UK. Will the Minister get back to me on that point? That also highlights that much is done underground, and we need to be much more transparent. We need to have the figures and to know that animal research is the last alternative, as it is meant to be. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that much more needs to be done about the transparency of the animal research industry.

Although no global ban has yet been enacted, the European Union ban on animal testing for cosmetics and on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals came fully into force in 2013. Other bans, some more comprehensive than others, are now in place in many countries. Guatemala, New Zealand, India, Israel, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam now have legislation, and things are moving forward in Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Chile, South Africa and China. In the USA, state-level bans have been enacted, as well as some mandated alternative laws. In a global market, it is essential that all countries ban the practice, to avoid testing simply moving around the world to countries with no effective laws, to ensure a level playing field and to put an end to animal suffering. The challenge is to make cruel cosmetics a thing of the past once and for all, and to achieve one coherent global ban on animal testing for cosmetics.

To market a product, a company must demonstrate its safety. Of course, of that we all agree, but that can be done by using approved non-animal tests and combinations of existing ingredients that have already been established as safe for human use. Increasing awareness of animal sentience and the pain, suffering and death inflicted upon animals via product testing has led the public to reject the idea in their droves. The number of companies seeking certification under Cruelty Free International’s leaping bunny programme is increasing, as their market insights tell them that consumers want cruelty-free personal care products.

The information that historically was gained from animal tests is increasingly being provided through quicker and more reliable non-animal methods. Modern methods are more relevant to humans and have been found to predict human reactions better than traditional animal-model methods. For example, an evaluation of the reconstituted skin model for skin irritation found that it predicted human skin reactions much better than the cruel Draize skin test on rabbits.

Rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, hamsters and rats continue to be injected, gassed, force-fed and killed for cosmetics testing worldwide. It is estimated from OECD figures that more than half a million animals are killed each year for cosmetics testing. Examples of the types of tests that are undertaken include repeated dose toxicity: to assess toxicity, rabbits or rats are forced to eat or inhale a cosmetic ingredient or have it rubbed on to their shaved skin every day for 28 or 90 days, and are then killed. Several reviews of the ability of rodent tests to predict human toxicity have found that they are only 40% to 60% predictive. They also include reproductive toxicity tests: to assess such toxicity, pregnant female rabbits or rats are force-fed a cosmetic ingredient and then killed, along with their unborn babies. Such tests take a long time and use thousands of animals, although studies have shown them to detect only around 60% of known human reproductive toxicants.

In toxicokinetic testing, rabbits or rats are forced to eat a cosmetic ingredient. They are then killed and their organs examined, to see how the ingredient is distributed in their bodies. Animals have significantly different metabolisms and physiology to humans. Thus, before the now available non-animal alternatives were routinely used by the pharmaceutical industry, the failure rate of drugs for poor prediction in this area was 40%.

Although some finished product tests take place, they are increasingly rare; most animal testing takes place on ingredients. It is important that consumers are aware of that; otherwise, they might unwittingly buy products that carry a meaningless claim, stating that the finished product has not been tested on animals, when the ingredients could well have been.

What are the alternatives? Companies can prove that their products are safe by using non-animal methods and utilising established ingredients. There are almost 30,000 ingredients on the EU’s database for which some safety data are available. There is an increasing number of non-animal methods available to replace outdated animal tests. To assess skin irritation, for example, we can use alternatives such as reconstituted human epidermis, such as the Episkin model developed by L’Oréal. More than 700 brands across the world are “leaping bunny” certified. Other companies may also follow this example and remove animal testing from their supply chains but, sadly, animal testing continues.

Some questions have been asked about the completeness of the EU ban. Since the introduction of the EU cosmetics directive, the European regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—REACH—has come into force. Although Cruelty Free International has fought hard against the animal testing provisions in REACH, it does have implications for many types of chemicals, including some that may be used in cosmetics. That is something to highlight to the public.

Some 80% of the world’s countries still allow the practice of testing cosmetic products on animals. In the global cosmetics market, it is essential that all countries end the practice of testing on animals, to avoid it simply moving around the world to countries with no effective laws. That has to ensure a clear playing field for this country and others that have done the right thing and give consumers confidence that they are buying cruelty-free.

Being able to claim that a product is cruelty-free is the most important packaging claim for a beauty product. A 2015 Nielsen study found the “not tested on animals” claim to matter the most to consumers. By ending animal testing for cosmetics, businesses will gain a competitive advantage here, across the EU and in the global cosmetics market. Worldwide consumers are increasingly demanding ethical, sustainable and humane products and services.

Cruelty Free International, which is represented in the Public Gallery this afternoon, has partnered with the global beauty brand The Body Shop. In less than a year, more than 5.5 million people worldwide have signed their joint petition, calling for a UN resolution to end cosmetics animal testing across the globe. They are aiming to bring 8 million signatures to the UN by October 2018, which would make it the largest ever animal protection petition. The overwhelming support from the public in more than 60 diverse countries shows clearly that people want international leaders to work together to adopt this resolution. The resolution would also be compatible with the sustainable development goals.

I ask the Minister and the Government to ensure that, once again, we are at the forefront of championing animal rights right across the globe. With sufficient political support from different regions around the world, including our own, member states could submit a resolution under the sustainable development item of the UN General Assembly second committee agenda, ahead of the 74th session in September 2019. That timetable would create enough space for consultation and learning, but would be flexible enough to adapt to change.

The UK Government must continue to lead on this issue. The public are calling for it. Let us stop the cruelty now and make that happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—I hope I pronounced that right; it always throws me—on securing this debate on an incredibly important issue on which, as she pointed out, the UK has a considerable track record.

Animal welfare is dear to my heart, and dear to all of our hearts. In recent months, both the Secretary of State and I have made a number of important changes to promote and improve animal welfare regulation. Recent announcements have included introducing a ban on ivory and steps to reduce cetacean bycatch. We have published a draft animal welfare Bill that will recognise animal sentience and introduced tougher regulations on pet vendors and puppy breeding. We have also announced our intention to control live animal exports further than we do now, and just yesterday we introduced regulations for mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses.

The UK has a long track record of being first when it comes to animal welfare. In 1822, this Parliament was the first ever legislature to implement laws to protect animals when it introduced the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act—“an Act to prevent the cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle”. As long ago as the 1950s, the UK was the first country to introduce new regulations outlawing certain types of inhumane traps for wild animals, and more recently we have promoted humane trapping internationally.

We have also always taken a leading role in international wildlife conventions such as the convention on international trade in endangered species, the convention on migratory species and the convention on biological diversity. This year, I hope to go to the International Whaling Commission, where the UK has a longstanding role in arguing for the ending of commercial whaling. Also, through various regional fisheries management organisations, we promote issues such as shark conservation. Finally—this is relevant to animal welfare in particular—we are a member of the OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health, currently as an EU member. The duty of loyal co-operation means that we have to attend it as part of an EU delegation, but the UK intends to use its freedom when it leaves the EU to argue strongly and powerfully for improved animal welfare standards around the world through the OIE.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The Minister is reeling off an impressive list of achievements, and rightly so. On the opportunities post-Brexit, we cannot ban live exports now, but will be able to do so after we leave the EU. Does he believe that Brexit will enable us to raise the standard of those products we import, so that they meet the animal testing standards that people in this country expect? Is Brexit an opportunity to go further than we can currently?

[George Eustice]

Those opportunities do present themselves once one has an independent trade policy, so yes, it is a potential opportunity to look at these issues and take our own independent seat on wildlife conventions such as CITES. I always remember a former Labour Minister telling me of their frustration when they wanted to restrict the sale of bluefin tuna, which was in a perilous state. The UK argued for that, but the European Commission took a different position and we had to fall in line with that. There will be opportunities for us as an independent country to be vocal on those issues, particularly in forums such as the OIE.

As the hon. Lady is probably aware, the OIE’s remit, somewhat surprisingly, does not extend to the welfare of animals and issues such as cosmetic testing. As she rightly pointed out, the UN is the right place for that. I should also point out that many Government Departments have overlapping interests. She may be aware that responsibility on animal testing and licensing of any such testing is the Home Office’s responsibility, deliberately not that of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DEFRA has responsibility for animal welfare issues, and obviously the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has responsibility for issues pertaining to the United Nations.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, in 1998 the UK was the first country in the world to implement a ban on the use of animals in cosmetic testing. The European Union’s ban on the use of testing in cosmetics was first introduced, I think, in 2013. Ever since we introduced our ban, the UK has shared our knowledge and expertise in this area with other countries. Most recently, for example, we provided support and advice to China on ending unnecessary cosmetics testing on animals and advised on a science-based approach for the use of non-animal alternative testing. In 2015, the Government implemented a similar ban on the testing of finished household products on animals as well as a qualified ban on ingredients. We therefore continue to make progress in this area in terms of both tightening our regulations and sharing our expertise with other countries.

I turn to the regulations in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) raised concerns about the number of animals on which cosmetics are still tested. There was a 5% reduction from 2015 to 2016. The Home Office publishes an annual report that gives details on the statistics for animal testing, which it is important to note is down considerably from a high point in 1971, when 5.6 million animals were used in animal tests; that was the peak. These days, some tests are, for instance, for animals that have been genetically altered, rather than what many people would regard as conventional animal testing. Nevertheless, it is a stated commitment of the Government to reduce the number of tests continually.

We recognise that in some instances animals can be an important tool in scientific research and can build on our understanding of how biological systems work. However, animals are not used lightly in that work, and the Government maintain a rigorous regulatory system under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That regulatory system ensures that animal research and testing is carried out only where there are no practical alternatives and under controls that keep suffering to a minimum.

As I said, the UK has played a leading role globally in supporting the development and adoption of scientific techniques to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals, known as the three Rs. The three Rs principle is robustly applied to every single research proposal that requires the use of animals, to ensure that animals are replaced with non-animal alternatives wherever possible, that the number of animals is reduced and that procedures are refined as far as possible to remove any suffering that animals might incur during those tests.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow made some important points about the role the UK will take in highlighting the issue internationally. It is already the case that, as the first country to adopt such a ban, we are keen to share our knowledge and experience in this area with many other countries. We have already done so recently with China. She cited a number of other countries that have introduced a ban.

I have made it clear that our general stance, particularly on the OIE, for which DEFRA is responsible, will be to agitate for higher animal welfare standards around the world. I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that we need cross-Government discussion on this specific issue with other Departments, notably the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which have a particular locus in this area. However, I will draw to the attention of the Ministers who lead on this the points that the hon. Lady raised today, and also the point that the shadow Minister made about other work to highlight this matter within the UN, to ensure that the UK plays an active part and does its utmost to spread the good practice that we began all those years ago in 1998.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The front end of a deposit return scheme is pretty common across different systems; the challenge is how the scheme is operated and financed. We need a scheme that will be effective in tackling on-the-go consumption in particular. No other country faces that specific challenge, and that is why it is taking us some time to complete the consultation, which will be published later this year. If legislation is required, we will of course introduce it, but at this stage we need to work out the details of the scheme.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

12. The Government deserve credit for their world-leading efforts to ban microbeads and to phase out the single use of plastic bags. I massively applaud their newer commitment to ban plastic straws, plastic stirrers and plastic coffee mugs and to introduce a new deposit return scheme for bottles. Nevertheless, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has done more than all his predecessors combined on this issue, to go further still? Can we look at the types of plastics we are using; attempt to phase out, as quickly as possible, those plastics that cannot be recycled; and commit to narrowing the range of plastics that we use, to make the job easier for those in the recycling industry?

[Dr Coffey]

At the launch of the 25-year environment plan, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister identified that issue of the wide range of polymers used. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are working, through officials, with the Waste and Resources Action Programme and the UK plastics pact to undertake the research and innovation required for manufacturers to work together to reduce the number of polymers, so that there are fewer of them and they can be recycled more readily.