Upper Catchment Management

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who is also an extremely able former shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She has done well in securing such an important debate. Both she and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) have shown a great talent for making a pitch, which any salesman would be rightly proud of.

My hon. Friend has highlighted how the lives of families and business people in the beautiful and historical city of York have still not returned to normal after Boxing day 2015, and she made an in-depth case for the Government to support the research by the University of York to improve moorland management.

I do not want to repeat all that my hon. Friend has said, as she spoke with her usual eloquence and passion, and laid out the evidence to back up her argument very clearly; I would say the same of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. Surely, therefore, the Minister can see that the case presented by my hon. Friend makes sense, especially as the Government have already invested £l million to fund the first phase of the research. I am confident that the Minister can make a case to her Department and the Treasury, particularly because there are so many benefits to be had from the study, perhaps most importantly and immediately for the people of York and the businesses based in that great city.

Following their national flood resilience review, the Government said their 25-year environmental plan would introduce catchment measures to minimise flooding. That was seven months ago. Similarly, in response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report, “Future flood prevention”, which was published last November, the Government said they supported a catchment approach, alongside engineered defences, and that such an approach would be at the heart of their 25-year plan. The Government also agreed that is important to build up more evidence to support the catchment-based approach.

Unfortunately, here we are at the end of this Parliament and we are still waiting to see the 25-year plan, which is of little comfort to those who live in areas prone to flooding and who have to face flooding on a regular basis. I personally have never had to face flooding, but I know people whose homes have been flooded, so I know how important it is to get work done in the right way at the right time to alleviate flooding and mitigate its impact. It is of great importance.

Can the Minister say what progress has been made on the Cumbria Pioneer project, which the Government believe will be an important step in understanding the value of catchment management in larger catchment areas, as well as influencing the development of good practice and innovative solutions? Will those solutions include taking local knowledge into account, which would prove invaluable as well as helping to build the confidence of communities, who often feel that the value of their experience of flooding is not taken fully into account?

At the end of this Parliament, I hope that the Minister can give Members and the public more reassurance than has been the case hitherto, especially as the Government have failed to take forward any key recommendations from the EFRA Committee’s report.

In an earlier debate, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who unfortunately cannot be here today to respond to this debate on behalf of Labour, said that

“we need to look at the whole river catchment.”

She also said that we need some quick fixes to reassure “nervous” communities, as well as investing in long-term solutions. In addition, she said:

“we need to stop talking about flood prevention. We cannot prevent flooding, but we can manage it and make our communities properly resilient.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2017; Vol. 622, c. 71.]

No one could fail to agree with that and as this is the last Westminster Hall debate of this Parliament, perhaps a good parting gesture from this Government would be for the Minister to agree to the request from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. I am sure that the Minister will answer my suggestion favourably and I now await her response with eager anticipation.

Food and Farming: Employment Opportunities

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this debate; he demonstrated that he has a passion for this issue. Although I am not the shadow spokesperson for fishing and farming, I think it is really important that he has raised this issue, which includes the future of fishing and farming, for debate today. This debate is particularly important because across the sector there are serious skill shortages that must be addressed if the success of the industry is to be maintained.

I will start by highlighting the situation in the UK food and drink manufacturing industry, which has up to 400,000 direct employees in roles ranging from sales and marketing to supply chain and logistics, and from production management to engineering. This industry has enormous potential as a high-value manufacturing sector, using innovative technologies in engineering, digital and life sciences to meet all the challenges of managing future food supplies and contributing to the wider carbon reduction agenda. That potential is being put at risk.

The Food and Drink Federation has highlighted that by 2024 more than a third of the sector’s workforce will have retired and 130,000 new recruits will be needed to fill the looming skills gap. A recent survey by the federation revealed that the top five skills gaps in the sector were in engineering, food science and technology, innovation, including product and process development, leadership and management, and customer service management. Although the ageing workforce and the skills gap are not new, the need to close the gap has become more urgent because, as in the rest of the agri-food supply chain, food and drink manufacturers currently benefit from bringing in skilled labour from the EU, which represents 29% of their workforce—120,000 workers. A high number of these workers carry out vital production, technical and specialist roles. Post-Brexit, the industry expects there to be restrictions on accessing non-UK EU workers, which will only intensify the skills gap.

To address the problem, the industry wants to see co-ordinated careers action and a more strategic approach to engagement with schools, to encourage homegrown talent for the long term. The Food and Drink Federation is also asking for technical education reforms, including with the institutes of technology, as the proposed T-levels fall short for the food and drink industry. The federation hopes to fulfil its pledge to increase the proportion of the workforce in food and drink manufacturing who are on apprenticeships to 3%—from the current 1%—by 2020, and to tackle market failures such as the fragmented apprenticeship provision for the sector and the lack of new standards at level 4 and above. I hope sincerely that the Minister will commit to addressing those issues with his appropriate colleagues in the relevant Departments as a matter of priority.

Some 11% of workers in the sector are employed in agriculture, with a high dependence on people from outside the UK. Up to 80,000 workers come to the UK every year to pick fruit and vegetables, 98% of them from the EU. In my own region—the north-east—farmers have told me that they rely on workers from abroad not only for seasonal jobs but to work on their farms throughout the year. Although it is important that young people are encouraged to take up careers in agriculture, the uncertainty in the agricultural and horticultural sectors about their workforce post-Brexit means that there is a need for urgent assurance from the Government. Farmers need the certainty of a good stream of seasonal workers, so if the Government will not give in to pressure to reintroduce the seasonal agricultural workers scheme—SAWS—will the Minister say exactly what measures are being put in place to encourage local people to fill the jobs?

Will the Government support schemes such as Wheels 2 Work, which helps young people in particular to access jobs in rural areas when there is no public transport? Finally, how much resource have the Government invested in plugging the gap left by the removal of SAWS? As food and farming accounts for 13.6% of the total workforce in employment, I hope that the Minister can fully address all the issues raised in the debate.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Mr Thomas, you will have two minutes once the Minister sits down.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives also made that important point, which I intend to cover later in my contribution.

The Institute for Apprenticeships began work on new apprenticeships this month and will in time oversee the development of both T-levels and apprenticeships, helping to drive up standards and ensure quality. I am delighted that two members of the board, Dame Fiona Kendrick of Nestlé and Paul Cadman from Walter Smith Fine Foods, bring expert knowledge of the food sector.

Finally, it is important to recognise that we must have continuous career progression once people are in the industry. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board runs a series of activities to boost farm competitiveness and sustainability, including farmer-to-farmer learning through business improvement groups and demonstration farms, so that there can be a sharing of expertise through open meetings, digital tools and knowledge exchange publications. Of course, there will be international benchmarking to learn from the experiences of other countries.

The Landex colleges last year came together to launch a new national college in agriculture, to thread together some of the activities that all of the Landex colleges are engaged in, and to try to secure the progression of more people towards level 3 qualifications, again with the aim of continuous professional career development.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives mentioned the image of the industry and the work being done to encourage more young people to go into it. Clearly, there are opportunities in the food, farming and fisheries sector, so we should encourage more young people to explore the sector when they think about their future. Overall, we currently have the highest employment rate—74.6%—since comparable records began, and youth unemployment has been falling, but it remains important to ensure that young people are able to make a smooth transition into the labour market, and that they consider the full range of options available as they prepare to launch their careers.

Careers in food and farming are too frequently perceived as low-paid, low-skilled and lacking in career progression opportunities. We need to challenge some of the outdated myths and champion the great careers that the sector offers. Across the country, engineers, scientists and technicians are at the cutting edge of innovation in agri-tech and food production. Industry-supported organisations such as Bright Crop, which my hon. Friend mentioned, IGD and the National Skills Academy for Food & Drink are working to tackle misconceptions and increase awareness of careers in the sector through initiatives such as Tasty Careers and Feeding Britain’s Future, which is run by IGD, and “The World is Your Oyster”, a campaign run by Seafish. All of those projects highlight the varied career paths that the seafood industry has to offer and the unique opportunities it can provide.

We are highlighting some of the superb apprentices already working in the industry, including by featuring them in the Government’s “Get In Go Far” careers campaign. In February this year, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs hosted a roundtable, bringing together a range of organisations to start a dialogue about what more industry and the Government can do together to champion the fantastic employment opportunities available in the food and farming sector. The roundtable heard directly from apprentices working in two leading food businesses—Nestlé and Mondeléz—about their experiences in the sector. The best people to sell the sector are often the young people who are starting out on their own careers in the industry.

[Mary Glindon]

The Minister is setting out some fine examples of what is happening, but may I press him on the industry’s need for seasonal workers? We want young people to get into the long-term jobs that he talks about, which is really important and probably the basis of the debate today, but there will be a continual need for seasonal workers. Without the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, how can we perpetuate our agricultural industry?

[George Eustice]

I shall return to that point—the hon. Lady also made it in her speech—as we have some time available, but the debate is predominantly about careers in agriculture and I wanted to focus on how to encourage more young people into those careers.

A number of hon. Members mentioned women in farming. I spoke at a “Ladies in Agriculture” event at the Farmers Club a couple of years ago—the former Secretary of State, the current Lord Chancellor, has also addressed that event. I mentioned a Tesco young farmers group earlier. Four of the 10 farmers in the group I met were women, so I believe we are making progress. It is essential not to overlook the great contribution that women can make, particularly when they are doing increasingly well in areas such as science. Many countries face the same challenge. Indeed, when I attended the G7 in Japan last year, one of their areas of focus was how to encourage more women into farming. Some of their ideas probably would not cut it over here—it was thought that a demonstration of a tractor with pink patterns on the side of the bonnet might help. I am not sure that would work here, but getting more women engaged in farming is a challenge for a lot of countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives mentioned the importance of encouraging school-age children to consider farming. The current school food plan actively encourages all schools to give children of primary school age an experience on a farm, so that they can see how food is produced. A number of the county show associations also run good projects. The Royal Cornwall Agricultural Association runs an event every year. It invites schools from across the county to come and learn about farming and farming careers. The Devon County Agricultural Association has as usual copied Cornwall and is running a similar project, which is great. We need as many areas as possible to promote farming as a career in schools.

The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) talked about the importance of farming and fishing north of the border, in Scotland. I regularly visit Scotland, particularly in connection with the fishing industry. I remember a visit to the Shetland Islands last year, where there is one of the key training academies for skippers and captains of fishing vessels. He mentioned the average age of farmers, which is another long-standing problem faced by many countries. The statistics often mask the reality, which is that the father is reluctant to let go of the purse strings but the actual manager of the holding is in the next generation down. Nevertheless, we are keen to do more to encourage more new entrants. There have been a number of projects, including some in Wales and some in Scotland. In Cornwall, the “Fresh Start” initiative worked on helping people to retire and creating opportunities for new entrants.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because of Brexit, it is an uncertain world. Brexit is a fantastic opportunity. I take a glass-half-full view of it. We have a great opportunity to design an agriculture policy that is better suited to all parts of the UK. Last week, I had a meeting with NFU Scotland to talk about some of its thoughts and ideas about how we could deal differently with policy in future. One thing of which I can assure him is that I have yet to find a fisherman in Scotland who would like us to rejoin the common fisheries policy having left it. The fishing industry almost universally believes that the decision to leave the EU was the right one, and relishes the opportunities that that brings to the Scottish fishing fleet.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), and indeed the hon. Member for Midlothian, mentioned labour. As the hon. Lady will know, the Prime Minister has made it clear that she wants to respect the rights of EU citizens who are here working in the UK. She made that point early on, soon after the decision to leave the EU, and also made the perfectly reasonable point that obviously we would expect that to be reciprocated, which is not controversial. She has also made it clear that she hopes the matter can be settled early in the negotiations. I believe we can give that reassurance to those living and working in the UK now.

The hon. Lady asked about seasonal labour. Having a controlled migration policy and ending the presumption of free movement does not mean pulling up the drawbridge and stopping all immigration. It simply means what it says—having control of migration. It would be for a future Government to decide what work permits they wanted to grant, and whether they should be short-term permits or permits for more skilled people. That could be done based on an assessment of our needs. If there is a need for seasonal agricultural labour, a future Government will have at their disposal the ability to grant the types of permit that would be needed. All those issues can be dealt with.

This was an important debate on an important subject that is dear to my heart. We have made good progress with our work on apprenticeships, and we have done some great work in schools to promote agriculture and food careers. There is further to go, but I believe we have made a good start.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend can still do the sums. The Government have taken several measures to make the inshore fleet more economically sustainable. For example, we have permanently transferred unused quota from over-10 metre vessels to the under-10 metre fleet, representing a 14% uplift to the under-10 metre fleet. We continue to top-slice the quota uplift, which is now more than 1,000 tonnes, in order to help the under-10 metre fleet.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Contrary to what the Minister of State said earlier, recent inflation figures reveal that food prices are rising at their fastest pace in three years, adding over £21 to the average household shopping bill in the last three months alone. When will the Secretary of State get a grip on a soaring cost of living that is affecting millions of families?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As I pointed out in answer to an earlier question, we saw the biggest spike in food prices in 2008 due to energy prices. Food prices fell by around 7% between 2014 and 2016. It is true that there has been modest increase over the last 12 months of 1.4%.

[Mary Glindon]

Rising food prices simply add to the burden on those with little money for food. The Food Standards Agency recently reported that one in four low-income families struggles to eat regularly, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission has shown that disabled people are more than twice as likely to live in food poverty. How much longer can the Secretary of State refuse to monitor and publish figures on UK food insecurity and food bank usage?

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, we have always monitored spending on food through the living costs and food survey, and food spending among the poorest 20% has been stable at 16% for over a decade. This Government have put more people in employment than ever before, taking more people off benefits and giving them an income. That is how to tackle poverty.

Draft Water Industry Designated Codes (Appeals to the Competition and Markets Authority) Regulations 2017 Draft Water Supply Licence and Sewerage Licence (Modification of Standard Conditions) Order 2017 Draft Water Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Order 2017

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 General Committees

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the Minister for presenting the statutory instruments. I will highlight the issues that Opposition Members consider important.

The draft water industry designated codes regulations set up a right of appeal to the Competition and Markets Authority against a decision by the water services regulation authority to revise or not revise a code designated for the purposes of section 207A(2) of the Water Industry Act 1991.

The draft water supply licence and sewerage licence order relates to the 1991 Act, as amended by the Water Act 2014, allowing the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to determine standard conditions in water supply and sewerage licences. The order specifies relevant percentages in relation to the condition that specified percentages of licence holders do not object to such modification. Modifications cannot proceed without reference to the Competition and Markets Authority if objections are made by 20% or more of relevant licence holders. The order specifies how licence holders are weighted in order to measure market share.

The draft Water Act 2014 order relates to the 1991 Act, as amended by the 2014 Act, which makes changes to the water supply licensing regime and introduces a new sewerage licensing regime in the areas of sewerage undertakers wholly or mainly in England. The order makes amendments to primary legislation in consequence of those changes and of the Water Act 2003, and also makes modifications to secondary legislation.

The Labour party broadly welcomes these measures and does not intend to divide the Committee on them.

Farriers (Registration) Bill (First sitting)

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am delighted to be able to present the Bill, to which I have some attachment, as my father started life as a farrier before the second world war. When he came back from the war, things had changed and he followed another career, but I am delighted to have this opportunity to introduce the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to protect and maintain the public interest and protect the welfare of equines by modernising the governance, structure and operation of the Farriers Registration Council and its statutory committees. That will enable the council to overcome practical difficulties caused by out-of-date legislation, reduce the risk of legal challenge and modernise the council’s structure and operations in line with the Government’s better regulation principles and the practices of other regulators.

Clause 1 introduces the schedule, which amends the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and makes changes to the constitution of the Farriers Registration Council and its committees: the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee. The schedule has three parts, which replace the respective sections in the original Act dealing with the constitution of the council, the constitution of the investigating committee, and the constitution of the disciplinary committee. I will summarise the key points of those parts and highlight the changes that the Bill makes.

Part 1 of the schedule deals with the constitution of the council. The Bill retains the existing number of members—16—but makes some changes to their make-up. It removes the distinction between employed and self-employed farriers, as virtually all farriers are self-employed these days, so the distinction is out of date and no longer representative or valid. Four practising farriers will be elected, and two farriers will be appointed by the British Farriers and Blacksmiths Association. Three members will still be appointed by the Worshipful Company of Farriers, but there will be a new requirement that at least one must be a practising farrier. That means that the minimum number of farriers on the council will be seven, and there may be as many as nine if the worshipful company chooses to appoint more than one farrier. The remainder of the council will be made up of two veterinary surgeons and five lay representatives appointed by various interested bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Horseracing Authority. The worshipful company will no longer appoint the chairman, who will be elected by the council from its members.

The Bill also tightens some of the provisions for serving on the council. It introduces a fixed four-year term of office for all members and stipulates that a member may serve on the council only twice. It introduces fitness-to-serve conditions. Members may be removed from office if they fail to comply with those conditions.

Turning to the changes in the constitution of the investigating and disciplinary committees set out in parts 2 and 3 of the schedule, part 2 deals with the investigating committee, which carries out preliminary investigations of cases or complaints against farriers that could amount to professional misconduct. If the investigating committee deems that to be so, the case is sent to the disciplinary committee, which determines whether the charges are proven. It can, where appropriate, apply sanctions—in the most serious cases, up to and including the removal of someone from the register of farriers. That would mean that that person would no longer legally be able to practise farriery.

The function of those committees is vital to the regulation of the farriery profession, and the Bill seeks to make changes to modernise the law and ensure that they are fit and proper for regulation in the 21st century. In particular, the Bill seeks to impose a full separation of powers, as I shall now explain. As the law stands, the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee are made up of members of the council. That does not fulfil the principle of separation of powers and the removal of possible bias and impartiality. The body that sets the standards for the profession is also responsible for investigation and adjudication on possible breaches of those standards.

As such, decisions of the investigating committee or the disciplinary committee may be subject to legal challenge by those whose cases are determined on the basis that they did not have the right to a fair trial. Equally, members of the public may view the lack of impartiality as farriers looking after their own. Consequently, it is vital that changes are made to bring the law up to date. The Bill proposes that members of the investigating and disciplinary committees are not members of the council; nor may they be an officer or servant of the council—that is, paid staff of the Farriers Registration Council.

The provision will be retained that a person on the disciplinary committee cannot sit on a case if they served time on the investigation committee in respect of the same case. That will ensure that full separation of powers is met and that the investigation and disciplinary committees meet the requirements of a modern regulator.

To summarise the remainder of the Bill: the investigating committee will consist of six people appointed by the council, of whom at least two must be registered by the council. The chair will be appointed by the council, and the quorum for a meeting will be three, at least one of whom must be a registered person. As with the council itself, the Bill would introduce a fitness-to-serve provision and powers to remove those who do not comply.

The constitution of the disciplinary committee, set out in part 3 of the schedule, follows similar lines. The principal difference from the investigating committee is that the disciplinary committee will consist of nine members appointed by the council, at least three of whom must be registered persons. The quorum for a meeting will be five members, at least one of whom must be registered. Otherwise, the same rules apply as for the investigating committee: the chair will be designated by the council, and a fitness-to-serve provision introduced, with powers to remove those who cannot comply.

Clause 2 inserts new section 17A into the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and gives powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend or replace those parts of the measure that deal with the constitution of the council, the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee. In short, the clause would allow future amendment of the legislation to be made by secondary legislation, should that become necessary.

The clause also recognises the devolved nature of the legislation and would require that, if any future legislative change is made, the Secretary of State must gain the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The Secretary of State must also consult the FRC and any other relevant parties. Legislative changes will be by statutory instrument and subject to the negative procedure.

Clause 3 provides for the Bill to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, and states that the main body of the Act will come into force when introduced by statutory instrument at a date determined by the Secretary of State.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. It is more than three years since the coalition Government carried out the consultation on reforming the governance structure and operation of the Farriers Registration Council. Unfortunately, they were not able to allocate time in the previous Parliament for a draft Bill to reform the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975.

I, therefore, congratulate the hon. Member for Gower on taking up the draft Bill. It was wonderful to hear—and he must be proud to be able to speak on this—about something that his father was involved in during his early life. He spoke in depth about the Bill’s clauses, so I will be brief, the Committee will be pleased to hear. The Bill will modernise the Government’s structure and operation of the FRC and its statutory committees to protect and maintain the public interest.

Under the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, the FRC not only has a responsibility to maintain, regulate and approve membership of the register, but it has a responsibility for the preliminary investigation of disciplinary cases through its investigating committee, and it determines cases through its disciplinary committee. The arrangements are out of date and are not in line with the regulation of other professions. In the Bill, members of both the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee will not be members of the FRC, which will result in an acceptable separation of powers. There will also be a fitness-to-serve requirement for all members, similar to that in other regulatory bodies. There are also defined terms of office, and the chair will no longer be appointed but will be elected by members of the council.

The Bill will reduce the risk of legal challenge, and bring the regulation of the farrier profession into line with the regulation of other professions. It will introduce a new flexibility, and will allow future changes to the FRC to be made by the Secretary of State under secondary legislation, thus allowing the FRC and its committees to be kept up to date and fit for purpose. We support the Bill, as it introduces a greater level of fairness and transparency to the FRC and its committees that will underpin its progress as a modern and professional regulator for its members, and for those who rely on the industry well into the future.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I, too, shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill. As a result of an interaction I had with a constituent of mine who is a farrier, I seem to have got to know more farriers in the country along the way. Perhaps this is a good example of how democracy works: we are here to serve our constituents, and I promised that if I could not get him the answer he needed, I would apply to get on the Bill Committee. Here I am today as a result.

My constituent, Mr Jeffrey Newnham, has concerns about the composition of the Farriers Registration Council, particularly the requirement that the worshipful company provide three members. It appears that the Government have also looked at this issue. The changes are welcome, and should be welcomed by my constituent. By ensuring that one of the three members from the worshipful company must be a farrier, the number of farriers on the council is increased. The Government seem to recognise that there should be greater representation of farriers within the worshipful company.

It may seem strange to some hon. Members, but it is not a requirement for the Worshipful Company of Farriers to actually provide farriers to the council. As a result, farriers feel that they are under-represented among the 16 members. They want 50% of the council to be farriers, rather than the seven out of 16 that will be the case under the Government’s change, which at least raises it from six. Farriers themselves feel that they are under-represented.

The point I would make to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, and perhaps to the Minister, is that there seems to be a lack of harmony between the farrier industry and its own worshipful company. Knowing some of these companies, I would say that its rules can at times be outmoded and its constitution might not necessarily reflect the industry that it was originally set up to serve. There may need to be a bringing together of farriers and their own worshipful company. I recognise that it is not the Government’s job to intervene so closely, but where farriers have real concerns about a lack of representation on their own council, I would like the Government to take steps to bring the sides together in the event that the Government are unwilling to put the make-up up to 50%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The three crop rule is exactly the sort of measure we should change once we have left the EU. Of course, we want farmers to manage sustainable rotations, to optimise yields and to protect soil, but we can do that without forcing them to grow a specific number of crops on a specific acreage of land.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

The National Farmers Union warned last week that the Government’s lack of clarity risked stifling the farming industry. This week, it was reported that the price of agricultural land fell by 7% in the past year due to the uncertainty of Brexit. The absence of any Government planning is plunging farming into a grave state. When will the Government give clarity and a long-term commitment to the farming industry on access to the single market, access to a seasonal workforce and a new long-term agricultural policy?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that our ambition is to have an all-encompassing free trade agreement with the European Union and to retain free and fair access to the European single market. As we have already discussed, we are looking closely at the need for a workforce now and in the future, and we are looking carefully at what more we can do around the world to make a huge success of leaving the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

We are determined to hold this terrible disease at bay for the sake of our entire poultry sector, and our robust actions so far have included an amended avian influenza prevention zone from 28 February, which covers all of England and requires mandatory biosecurity for all keepers and the compulsory housing or netting of poultry and captive birds in defined higher-risk areas. That is very important for the entire sector.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Further to what the Secretary of State just said, she must be aware that English poultry producers are concerned about the prospect of losing free-range status because of the postcode lottery of the bird flu restriction system. The British Free Range Egg Producers Association is particularly concerned about the inconsistent approach. What more can she say to assure egg producers throughout the UK that the right measures are being taken to sort out this whole sad issue?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Colleagues will be aware that there was a full housing order until 28 February. With extensive scientific advice, we have gleaned that those places where wild fowl congregate are high-risk areas. That has been extensively peer reviewed on the basis of scientific evidence, which is why we have published a paper to outline the rationale. This has absolutely not just come out of our own heads; in no way whatsoever are we doing anything other than protecting this vital sector.

Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Mr Turner, I am sorry. I stand castigated. You are absolutely right.

We are trying to get the lease so that Kew can start the planning within the world heritage status. We are not going down any avenues or roads that come to a dead end at any time. I have worked with Kew for some time and I know that Lord Gardiner will keep us well informed of Kew’s future aspirations and hopes, because obviously it is a jewel in the British crown.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset and Lord Gardiner on introducing this important Bill.

As a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee in the previous Parliament, I was privileged to visit Kew with Committee colleagues and see at first hand the marvellous work being done there at all levels. The world-class research carried out at the Royal Botanic Gardens is something we should all be very proud of. Kew rightly deserved being awarded UNESCO world heritage site status in 2003, which gave due recognition to the important mix of science, education, public amenity and architectural heritage represented at the site.

However, such a facility has significant maintenance costs as well as the cost of funding important research. The world-class scientific research carried out at Kew should be protected by the Government and should receive proper funding and recognition. In his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, John Wood, a senior research associate at the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Oxford, said:

“Kew cannot and should not compete for short-term grant money with a view to producing high impact academic publications. Instead it should provide taxonomic services of the highest international quality to catalogue the world’s plant diversity and support other areas of biodiversity and ecological research.”

The Government’s £130 million funding package for Kew Gardens, announced in 2016, was therefore very welcome. I am pleased that the Secretary of State recognised the need for more money to enable Kew to maintain its estate and to support its world-class science base. However, this does not address one of the complications surrounding the way in which the Royal Botanic Gardens are funded. The gardens are Crown land and are covered by the Crown Lands Act 1702. As has already been said, that 18th century legislation limits leases on buildings on Crown land to 31 years.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset said that this is a little Bill. We support this little Bill, because it would modernise those restraints and instead allow leases of up to 150 years. We believe that would make properties on the Kew Gardens estate more commercially attractive, generating income that can help support its world-class scientific research and help maintain its historic buildings. My researcher gave me an estimate that in the first 10 years of the new arrangements Kew could bring in £40 million in capital receipts. I am not sure that has been verified after what was said earlier, but I would agree with Jill McLaughlin, director of corporate services at the Royal Botanic Gardens, that the Bill would bring Kew into line with modern-day lease arrangements and enable it to generate much-needed income and be more financially self-sufficient.

Domestic Ivory Market

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mrs Main. I thank the members of the public who signed the petition and the Petitions Committee for securing this debate. Our thanks must also go to all the organisations, some of which have been mentioned, that are supporting this cause and working to protect elephants and other wildlife in this country and across the world. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), on behalf of the Petitions Committee, made a very clear case for why the Government need to support the ban set out in the petition. I thank him for that. I commend those who have taken part in the debate, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). They all made an excellent case for ensuring the survival of elephants and, most importantly, why the weight of responsibility is on us here and now.

Throughout the debate, we have heard from hon. Members how the UK, and indeed the EU, must match the action to stop the terrible ivory trade that the US, France, Hong Kong and recently China, the largest global market of all, have taken. The evidence of support for immediate similar action in the UK is clear from the number of people supporting this petition and from opinion polls showing that 85% of the British public want an ivory trade ban.

The main motivation for the UK Government should be the slaughter of elephants by poachers who feed these markets. The Government must recognise that an overwhelming majority of African countries actively campaign to close down ivory markets everywhere. The Government should listen to the African nations who share their lands with the elephant herds and not to the voices of the antique traders, the big game hunters or those who still sit on stored ivory as bullion.

The Government would do well to take notice of Botswana, the largest elephant range state. It is home to 130,000 elephants, almost a third of the total African elephant population. Botswana is a Commonwealth country, a parliamentary democracy and a long-standing friend of our country. Last year, it changed its policy and is now committed to 100% protection of its elephants, which have proved to be a sure asset for the tourist trade there. Botswana’s Environment Minister, Tshekedi Khama, spoke passionately at last year’s CITES conference in favour of appendix 1 status for elephants within his country’s borders, but he was ignored by the EU and the UK Government, who used their block vote to veto it. I have been told that many UK attendees at that conference felt a true sense of shame at this outcome.

Mr Khama and his brother, the President, remain absolutely committed to conservation and to Botswana’s role as a safe haven for migrating elephants under threat in neighbouring countries. Sadly, our Government have shown little commitment to supporting these efforts. Consultation documents, which are overdue and address only a fraction of the ivory trading problem, are certainly not seen as the way forward by Botswana.

Tanzania has also changed its policy on the ivory trade, freezing its stockpile, and trying to address the serious poaching threat that has decimated its elephants in recent years. Last month, the former President, Benjamin Mkapa, called on all nations to ban trade in elephant ivory. He said:

“We need to work together to stop this, our fellows must ban the importation and uses of elephant tusks, this means there will be no market for tusks and nobody will kill elephants.”

His words are clear, and our response as a friendly country should be to close our own ivory markets, not fiddle at the margins with one category of post-1947 modern ivory.

In East Africa, we already have the inspiring example set by Kenya. For many years, that country has led African calls to ban the ivory trade, anticipating the appalling escalation of poaching. Last year, its President publicly destroyed his country’s ivory stockpile of more than 100 tonnes with huge pyres in the Nairobi national park. The action was endorsed by both France and the US, but not by the UK. That is another broken promise by the Government, who advocated the destruction of ivory stockpiles in their 2010 manifesto.

Kenya went on to press successfully for additional international action to protect elephants at the International Union for Conservation of Nature and CITES conferences in September and October 2016. Although CITES appendix 1 status was blocked by the UK and other EU countries, those conferences passed resolutions calling for the closure of domestic ivory markets throughout the world. The resolutions are clear. They do not exempt antiques, but make a link between the existence of markets and the illegal killing of and trade in elephants. Again, the UK’s role is weak and ambiguous. We must remember that the EU is the single biggest exporter of ivory and ivory products according to the CITES trade database. There was a dramatic increase in the number of both raw and worked ivory items exported from the EU in the last two years for which data are available.

At the IUCN conference, many EU countries, including France, Italy and Spain, voted to support the unequivocal call to close domestic markets. Some others abstained but, shamefully, the record shows that the UK abstained by proxy. We sent a postal vote to abstain on the fate of elephants being poached at the rate of four every hour. The sound of the UK dragging its feet in this debate may resonate around the world, as well as in this Chamber.

Only last week, Patrick Omondi, the Kenyan CITES chief and chairman of the African Elephant Coalition of 29 African countries said:

“The CITES recommendation to close domestic ivory markets was a breakthrough. But it will be meaningless if countries ignore it. The EU and its Member States have an opportunity to realign themselves with France, which recently issued strict regulations, and work with China to implement the CITES recommendation. One thing is certain: business as usual is not an option if we want to save elephants for future generations.”

I call on the Minister again, as I did in the debate in December 2016, to step up to the plate and to keep her party’s promise to ban ivory trading altogether in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said in that debate, Labour would support the legal steps needed to implement the ban. We must act before it is too late for the elephants. I urge the Minister to act now, to forget exemptions, to support the petition and to heed the appeal of the 29 member countries of the AEC to both the UK and the whole of the EU to permanently ban all external and domestic ivory trade.

With the European Commission due to issue new guidance on the ivory trade within and exports from the EU, following its CITES management authority’s meeting tomorrow, will the Minister take the opportunity to press for new regulations in Brussels? How can we afford to see these intelligent, beautiful giants of the Earth disappear because our generation failed to save them from extinction?

Leaving the EU: Animal Welfare Standards in Farming

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) on securing the debate; she showed her real concern and passion through the knowledge she imparted to us today. The hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) all showed their real concerns about animal welfare and also imparted a lot of knowledge to us.

On this side of the Chamber, we want to see the legal standards set by the EU protected and enhanced even further post-Brexit. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those involved in farming and its associated industries for all they do to maintain high animal welfare standards across the UK. In 2013, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reported that the UK was leading the way on animal welfare standards, banning the use of barren battery cages for egg-laying hens, veal cages for calves and sow stalls for pigs, all long before the EU outlawed them. British farmers have led by example, with 88,000 farmers part of red tractor assurance.

Although the Government have said that existing EU laws will be incorporated into domestic law through the great repeal Bill, the Secretary of State has indicated that there will be an opportunity for the Government to scrap the EU regulations that they do not like. The problem is that the Government could be drawn into a race to the bottom on animal welfare standards when negotiating trade deals with countries outside the EU that have much lower standards than ours. I hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that the welfare of farm animals will not be used as a bargaining chip in any future trade negotiations.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I have similar concerns about what happens if, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) suggested, the powers are devolved. How can the hon. Lady see devolved Parliaments and Assemblies not using the powers as a bargaining chip to influence international deals that we may be trying to achieve for the benefit of the whole of the UK?

[Mary Glindon]

Upholding our standards must be paramount and we must stick firm. I hope that the Government do not try to water down any standards unilaterally.

When the Secretary of State addressed the Oxford farmers conference, she announced regulations that she would like to scrap, including the three-crop rule. If the public are to have confidence in any of the Government’s promises on animal welfare, we must be told what objective criteria the Secretary of State is using when she makes such announcements. I hope the Minister can tell us what the criteria are.

The desire for a ban on live animal exports has already been mentioned. I hope that we will get a full explanation from the Minister on what he hopes will happen on that, because it is so important.

A big area of concern is how inspection regimes and enforcement will be upheld after EU regulations no longer apply. Currently, we have a shortage of the suitably qualified veterinary staff who are needed to ensure that standards are being complied with. That shortage may be exacerbated by new restrictions on freedom of movement. What are the Government doing now about that skills shortage?

Our membership of the EU has been valuable to scientific and veterinary communities; it has provided cross-border access to research laboratories in other EU countries and the sharing of best practice on issues such as disease management. Those links have provided an important means of upholding high animal welfare standards. Will the Minister set out how those issues will be addressed in the negotiations and how he will ensure that those important links can be sustained after we leave the EU?

Does the Minister further acknowledge the need for certainty over future border controls? Will he commit to working closely with veterinary experts, as well as farmers, to ensure that that is addressed in the negotiations?

There is also a need for the Government to develop a new system of farming support to replace the common agricultural policy after 2020, which is an opportunity for the Government to design a system that actively provides incentives for farmers to deliver the highest possible animal welfare standards. Will the Minister say what is being considered?

Finally, will the Minister give a reassurance that DEFRA’s upcoming Green Paper on food and farming will have a strong emphasis on upholding and strengthening animal welfare? Farming is vital to our economy and the Government must give it safe passage through the Brexit deal.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister concludes his remarks no later than 5.46 pm, that will allow the Member in charge to sum up.

Non-recyclable and Non-compostable Packaging

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bone. There may not have been many contributions to the debate, but they have all been relevant and informative. I thank the Petitions Committee for putting the debate forward and the hon. Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) for his opening remarks, including his stark comments about the future of the oceans and what our not tackling the issue will mean to future generations. We must agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is passionate and knowledgeable about every issue on which he speaks. It was good to hear his interventions challenging some of people’s conceptions about recycling. It is good to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who chairs the all-party group for the packaging manufacturing industry, of which I am a member. He gave us the other side of the coin, and was very positive about why we have packaging.

The petition calls for a ban on the use of all non-recyclable and non-compostable packaging, but the Government, as shown by their response, clearly do not share that view and argue that it is ultimately for businesses to decide what packaging materials to use. My party takes a different view from the Government’s. We realise that the problem is complex, but believe that the Government could make more direct interventions. When the last Labour Government were in power, recycling rates quadrupled. It is worrying that the latest figures show that, across the UK, household recycling rates fell from 44.9% in 2014 to 44.3% in 2015.

As waste policy is a devolved issue, perhaps the Government could look for lessons from the Labour Administration in Wales, which is the only part of the UK to have met the EU’s 50% recycling target. In 2010, the Welsh Government committed to the principles of a circular economy in their “Towards zero waste” strategy. Since then, recycling rates in Wales have increased dramatically from 44% to almost 56%.

Regulations introduced in 2007 by the Labour Government placed a legal obligation on UK businesses to increase the amount of packaging waste that is recycled and reduce the amount that goes to landfill, but last year those regulations were substantially watered down, as the Government claimed that there was a need to reduce regulatory burdens on producer businesses. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 have been important in ensuring that where businesses make or use packaging, a proportion of it can be recycled and the amount of packaging is not excessive for keeping products safe, hygienic and acceptable to the customer—something that the hon. Member for Rugby spoke about eloquently.

The regulations apply whether items are packaged in the UK or abroad, but there are plenty of examples, particularly in this age of online shopping, where it is clear that they are not adhered to. I am not a great one for shopping online, but in my limited experience of doing so, as well as shopping in stores, I have noticed how much excessive packaging there seems to be, which leads me to agree with Dr Colin Church of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, who, in recent comments on the fall in recycling figures, pointed out that perhaps the packaging recovery note compliance scheme is in need of revision.

Experts and organisations agree that the biggest problem discouraging the public from recycling is uncertainty and confusion about what can and cannot be recycled. Indeed, perhaps that is one of the reasons for the popularity of the petition, even if the public do not think its ultimate aim can be achieved. That confusion has already been discussed in the debate. I hope that different local authorities’ inconsistent approaches to what can be recycled will be addressed to some degree through the work done by WRAP, recyclers, waste management companies and local authorities on developing national recycling guidelines. Those were published last autumn. However, as with the plastics industry recycling action plan, which was launched in 2015 with the aim of co-ordinating action across the supply chain to improve recycling rates, it relies on a voluntary approach. It is not clear whether those initiatives will deliver the necessary improvements within the timescales required under the regulations. WRAP will keep the guidelines under review, but it would be helpful if the Minister commented on the progress of those initiatives.

Although 80% of a product’s environmental impact is determined by decisions made at the design stage, there is little incentive for businesses to take environmental issues into account at that stage. That must change and a number of proactive steps could be taken to encourage businesses to make more efficient use of resources in designing new products. For example, to help make eco-friendly products more appealing, the Government could set variable rates of VAT based on recycled content.

Much more action is surely needed if the Government and EU target to increase the rate of plastic packaging recycling to 57% by the end of 2017 is to be considered realistic. As has been mentioned, a new global action plan announced by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation was launched at the World Economic Forum last week. It has been endorsed by industry leaders and aims to increase the global reusing and recycling of plastic packaging from 14% today to 70%. That and other initiatives are a welcome step forward. Given the involvement of companies such as Coca-Cola, Unilever, Mars and the People’s Postcode Lottery, I sincerely hope that the work done under the global plan will have a great influence in the UK.

The impact of Brexit on much of the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is still not clear. The most immediate questions relate to the EU’s circular economy package, which will include updates to key directives on waste disposal and packaging. Some of the details of those changes are still to be negotiated, and once finalised, will need to be implemented at national level. While the Government have said that existing EU law will be carried over by the great repeal Bill, it is not clear what will happen to EU laws that have been passed but not yet implemented in UK law at the time of our leaving. Will the Minister give a specific answer on whether the circular economy package will be implemented before we leave the EU? Will she tell us how we will enforce those laws outside the current EU framework? Will she also say what additional plans the Government have beyond the circular economy package to bring the UK closer to those ambitious recycling targets?

Embracing the circular economy is something we should all agree on. We need to see more action from Ministers if they are genuine about recycling across the UK and if they take seriously the views of the people of the UK, as expressed in the petition.