Maldives: Political Situation

Debate between Lord Swire and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Hugo Swire]

This is the great dilemma of the Maldives. It is, on the one hand, an Islamic country, but on the other it is host to many hundreds of thousands of people from around the world, on whom it depends and who should be free to practise their own religion, even if they are on holiday.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

President Mohamed Nasheed was the first democratically elected president of the Maldives, and he was elected after years of having been tortured and abused in that country’s jails by his predecessor. He was a great leader, famously closing the political prisons and holding his first Cabinet meeting underwater to highlight climate change. He was a truly progressive, secular leader in a democratic country. Does my right hon. Friend not share my tremendous sadness at how far this country has fallen at the hands of utterly corrupt and malignant forces?

[Sir Hugo Swire]

My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right and I shall go on to say something about this. I very much see the former President Mohamed Nasheed having a role in the future of the Maldives, along with others who have sometimes been his political opponents. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

There have been murders of prominent liberal bloggers and journalists, too. In late September last year Her Majesty’s Government warned that terrorists were “very likely” to carry out an attack on the islands. I understand that this is also the current travel advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Allegedly, between 200 and 250 Maldivians are either fighting or have fought in Syria and Iraq. US Assistant Secretary of State, Alice Wells, claimed that the Maldives was the highest foreign fighter contributor per capita to the so-called Islamic State.

Much of the recruiting and radicalisation is promoted by websites such as Bilad al-Sham Media, and Facebook and other social media are more accessible than ever on the remote islands that make up the country.

My second point concerns the safety of our British tourists. The United Kingdom ranks third in a list of visitors to the Maldives in 2016, behind Germany and China, with 7.9% of market share and more than 100,000 visitors. This was an increase of 9.8% compared with 2015.

The Maldives economy remains a tourism driven economy in that it contributes more than 25% of the country’s GDP. While the tourism sector supplies more than 70% of the foreign exchange earnings to the country, one third of the Government revenue is generated from this sector. Tourism is also known as the leading employment generator in the country. In 2016, tourism contributed 36.4% to the Government revenue. But as a result of the current situation, the Maldives is facing financial ruin, with the tourism industry estimated to be losing $20 million a day since the start of the state of emergency. If the trend continues, it will lead to unemployment and dissatisfaction—to my way of thinking both active recruiting sergeants for radicalisation. With our tourists spread out over 115 square miles in 105 resorts it is almost impossible to guarantee their safety.

My third point concerns the Commonwealth. After 30 years of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s rule, it was President Nasheed who introduced democracy into the Maldives. From 1982, it was a welcome member of the Commonwealth family. It was President Yameen who took the country out of the Commonwealth in 2016.

Animal Welfare

Debate between Lord Swire and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government policy on animal welfare.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. It is often said that we are a nation of animal lovers and in many respects we are a world leader in animal welfare. That is something we can be proud of.

In the months since the general election we have seen a blizzard of activity from the Government that will build on that proud record. They have committed to putting CCTV into all abattoirs to prevent abuse; they have committed to increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; they have committed to closing down the ivory trade in the UK, to remove loopholes allowing new ivory to be sold as if it is old ivory; they are banning neonicotinoids, pesticides that are wiping out bees and many other pollinators; they are bringing in measures to tackle plastic waste that is clogging up our oceans, as we have all seen on the extraordinary “Blue Planet” series; and they are banning microbeads, those tiny particles of plastic that are causing mayhem to marine life.

On a bigger scale, we have seen over the past few years the creation of a network of giant marine protected areas. Our 14 overseas territories represent the fifth-largest marine estate in the world and include some of the most important biodiversity hotspots in the world. This Government have committed nearly 4 million square kilometres to protection by 2020—an area way bigger than India. That represents the single biggest conservation measure by any Government ever.

Despite that, there remains much to be done if we want to bring our animal welfare and environmental policy laws up to date, as we should. In this debate, I want to centre on animal welfare. It is timely that the Government have announced today that they will bring forward a new animal welfare Bill to deliver some of the commitments that have already been made.

As hon. Members know, we are putting EU environment and animal welfare laws into UK law, but there has been some controversy over one issue in particular: animal sentience.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my sense that there are some who have been mischievous and misleading on that subject, because they refuse to believe that the Government take animal welfare seriously and are legislating more than any previous Government have done?

[Zac Goldsmith]

My right hon. Friend makes the point well and I agree with him. It was reported two weeks ago, as hon. Members will remember, that MPs had voted as if they felt that animals do not have feelings. That story took on a life of its own. It became a forest fire on social media. In fact, it became the top political story of the year. I have to say, notwithstanding what he has just said, it is a wonderful reflection on the British people that they made it the top story of the year, but it was, as he has said, fake news.

There has never been any disputing the fact that animals have feelings or that animal sentience needed to be enshrined in UK law. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made clear at that time that he intended to find the best legislative vehicle for translating sentience into law, and today, as expected and as promised, he has, in a new animal welfare Bill. Also as expected and as promised, the new rules will go further, because our sentience principle will apply to all policy decisions and relate to all animals. It will not be narrowly restricted to those policy areas under EU control, as it is today. That point was made earlier today by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is a very good point. The sentience principle in EU law has been held up by some as a gold standard, but it is a gold standard that has allowed foie gras, veal production, fur farming, in some cases donkey torture, bull fighting and much more besides. It is not a gold standard. We are setting a gold standard. We are going to go so much further, which we should be proud of.

Returning to procurement, we have £2 billion at our disposal, which we currently spend each year on food of a pretty low standard. In my view, that is a wasted opportunity. There are hundreds of schools and hospitals in this country already, including in my own constituency, that are choosing to use their buying power to support suppliers who guarantee higher standards. The Government need to take that best practice and make it into the norm.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

My hon. Friend is making some extremely good points. Does he agree that one thing that has hitherto prevented our schools and particularly our armed forces from buying British products is EU procurement legislation? When we leave the EU, we will not have to do that, so we will be able to sell our own British-made products to British institutions.

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is exactly right. That has been a barrier all the way along from the Government’s point of view. However, they can now begin to take that best practice and make it the norm. I would like to see them commit to using their vast buying power to boost the most sustainable and highest animal welfare standards. When I first raised this point in Parliament as a new MP seven years or so ago, I was told all the time by Ministers: “You cannot do it. It will be too expensive. It is a luxury.” I helped to set up a group called School Food Matters, originally in Richmond, to try it out in my own area. We persuaded Richmond Council and then Kingston Council to rewrite their contracts. Today, every single primary school in Richmond serves Food for Life gold standard food—the very best people can get. They prepare all their food in house and take-up by parents has trebled, and we are doing nearly as well in Kingston, where it started slightly later. Here is the thing: the cost per meal went down by 38p—it did not go up; it went down. In my view, that removes the only argument against pursuing this policy.

There is no reason not to use that simple but powerful lever to support the highest standards, but the Government can do more than that: they can raise the standards as well. There are two important ways in which the Government should do so. The first, simply, is to update the rules around cages. Millions of animals are currently trapped in appalling conditions on our farms. Pregnant sows are stuffed, unable to move, into farrowing crates, typically from a week before giving birth until the piglets are weaned. Those have been banned in Sweden and Norway, and we should do the same. Chickens are no luckier. We banned battery cages in 2012, but the so-called enriched cages that replaced them are more or less the same. They are hideously restrictive, and there is virtually no additional room at all. The life of a factory chicken just does not bear thinking about. Luxembourg and Germany have banned the cages, so why cannot we?

The second way in which we can easily raise standards is by tackling the overuse and abuse of antibiotics on farms. This is an animal welfare issue because antibiotics have been used in farming to keep animals alive in conditions where they would otherwise die, but it is also a major human health issue. The abuse of antibiotics has allowed the growth of resistant bacteria, which can spread to the human population and reduce medicines’ effectiveness in treating our own infections. The brilliant chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies has warned:

“If we don’t take action, deaths will go up and up and modern medicine as we know it will be lost.”

It is worth thinking about that pretty profound statement from the chief medical officer. She has talked about a “catastrophic threat”: the risk of millions of people dying each year from common infections.

The good news is that, after a lot of campaigning, the issue has risen up the political agenda and the Government have taken action. Sales of antibiotics to treat animals in the UK fell by 27% from 2014 to 2016. That is clearly good news, but the threat remains acute and the Government need to get a stronger grip. There should be absolutely no mass medication of animals simply to prevent illness. It should be outlawed. There should be no use of antibiotics, such as Colistin, that are classified as critically important to human health. They should have no place on a farm. If we stop this madness, we stand a chance of preventing a human health disaster and, as it happens, we will also force a kinder, more civilised form of farming.

Finally, on agriculture, an issue that merits, and has indeed had, many debates all of its own is the badger cull. The Government have always said that their policy of culling badgers to stop the spread of bovine TB is based on science, but that position is becoming harder to justify. The only full Government study into bovine TB transmission between cattle and badgers, which ran from 1998 to 2006, concluded that

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

More recently, the independent expert panel appointed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advise on the current pilot cull stated that it was ineffective and inhumane. Nobody doubts the importance of dealing with TB or the devastating impact that it can have on livelihoods—