Air Quality Strategy

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

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

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

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I urge the Secretary of State, along with all Ministers, to work on the air quality plan with the very greatest urgency after the general election, because we have waited a very long time for it. Many of the problems with diesel actually started under the previous Government, and we need to clean that up. A scrappage scheme—for not only our diesel cars, but buses, taxis and many other forms of public transport in our inner cities—is absolutely essential if we are to clean up air quality, especially in our inner cities.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is, of course, exactly right. We have now been working on this specific plan for several years. We published a consultation for clean air zones in 2015. The fact that emissions from diesel vehicles have far exceeded what was expected has been extremely difficult. The EU regulatory regime did not show effectively what the real levels of emissions were, and this Government have pushed for improvements to the assessment. We have been planning the draft air quality plan for a consideration length of time, and we will publish it just as soon as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Prime Minister has made it clear that she wants a bold, ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement. We are looking closely at the issue of border controls, particularly in respect of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. We talk regularly to industry on the issue, and we have a meeting with some of the devolved Administrations later today in which we will be looking at precisely these sorts of issues.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Lamb is trading at significantly lower prices this year than it did last year at this time. New Zealand lamb comes in during the winter, when our lambs do not, and there seems to be too much New Zealand lamb in our major retailers and not enough British lamb. I would like the Minister to bring it to the attention of the major retailers that British lamb should now be in the shops, which should not be packed with New Zealand lamb.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. At Easter, people really want to buy high-quality west country, Welsh and Scottish lamb, and indeed lamb from every part of the United Kingdom. We faced an issue this year, in that prices were actually very good during the winter, which meant that a number of sheep producers decided to sell their lamb early and so there has been less British lamb available at this time of year.

Animal Welfare

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that current penalties for animal welfare offences in England are among the lowest in Europe; believes that while the Government's plans for a new licensing regime for dogs in England is welcome the Government should consider a ban on the third party sale of dogs; and calls on the Government to increase the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences to five years, as recommended in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s Third Report, Animal welfare in England: domestic pets, HC 117.

It is a great pleasure to introduce the debate. The report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, published in November last year, was the result of a long inquiry into aspects of animal welfare involving domestic pets such as dogs and cats, as well as horses. We took evidence from animal welfare charities, local government, the National Police Chiefs Council, industry representatives, veterinarians, academics and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to name but a few. We visited Battersea Dogs & Cats Home to learn about its work and also visited a commercial breeder and an animal rescue centre in Wales.

The Committee was unanimous on animal cruelty sentences: the current penalties for animal welfare offences in England are far too low. The maximum sentence for animal cruelty is six months in prison and an unlimited fine.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend take some evidence from me on that?

[Neil Parish]

I certainly will.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that and on his excellent motion, but part of the problem is persuading courts even to impose those minimum sentences that are far too low.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. I just feel that if we have a stronger sentence and there is more flexibility in the courts, the magistrate will be able to impose that sentence for the very worst of cases. My right hon. Friend is right, but sometimes the current sentence of six months is just not long enough.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He mentioned the Committee being unanimous. Will he also acknowledge that many constituents across the UK have emailed their MPs and asked them to come here today because they agree with the Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: I believe that there is huge public support for stronger sentencing, and I hope that the Government are listening. Given the number of people in our prisons, I accept that we do not want huge sentences for every crime, but those who beat dogs, cats and other animals to death and plead guilty get an automatic 30% reduction in their sentence; they get four months. I do not believe any of us think that that is long enough.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I wholeheartedly support him, while of course declaring my interest of having a dog as part of my family. Our sanctions against people who commit these horrendous crimes compare poorly globally; will he comment on that?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our sentences are lower than those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, too, so there is far stiffer sentencing even in our own countries of the United Kingdom. We should also consider the message that it sends if the sentence for beating to death a sentient being that relies entirely on human care is less than that for, perhaps, stealing a computer; it really is not on. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully; I know he is very keen on animal welfare. It is probably not always his remit to increase sentencing, but we must get this message out, loud and clear.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

To reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point, 1.2 million people have contacted the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals about animal cruelty. Importantly, the legislation is extremely weak and I support him in what he is trying to achieve.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree entirely. Many aspects of animal cruelty are reported, but others are not. Having stronger sentencing would be a deterrent; we want to prevent the cruelty from happening in the first place. Having a sentence of at least five years would send the right message. Then it would be up to the courts to decide what sentence they dish out in the end.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is much more important to prevent cruelty in the first place, and therefore changing the legislation on air guns is vital? Cats and dogs are often the targets for people using those weapons. Legislation has been changed by the devolved Administrations for their countries, and it is about time that it was changed in England, too.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady raises a good point. The use of air guns against cats and dogs can have terrible consequences. Lead pellets often cause a lot of injury and subsequent pain.

To make a broader point, we need to do much more in schools and the education system to make sure people know how to look after an animal. Most people do know how to look after animals. Unfortunately, animal cruelty is going on in some families, and perhaps the children do not know of anything else but what is happening at home. We must try to tackle that.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I declare my interest as someone who not only cares about the welfare of animals, but has prosecuted cases in the courts under animal cruelty legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter goes a little further than simply sentencing, however? A number of Members have referred to deterrents. Although the offences of those who have been convicted are recorded on the police national computer, that is not very accessible, and a national register, which is easier to consult, would go quite some way towards ensuring that people who have mistreated animals on one occasion and been convicted cannot then do so again.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: a national register would be good. I would like to see this go further, too. In the United States, a lot of work is done on linking animal cruelty to human cruelty within the home, and I think the two need to be linked much more. It often does not take long to go from treating an animal cruelly—especially beating an animal to death—to starting to beat people up; we have to wake up to that.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I applaud my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He touches on a pertinent point: there are stark statistics proving that people who abuse animals often go on to abuse humans—and indeed it can happen at the same time, of course. A register would therefore be very beneficial in helping tackle what is a much bigger social problem.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention; she is an excellent Select Committee member. She makes the point about getting that link; when finding cruelty to animals we should make much more of a link to investigating what is happening in the home, to see whether there is much more going on than just the cruelty to the animal. We must open our eyes to what is happening. Most people look after animals very well, but of course those who do not can be incredibly cruel, and we need to tackle that.

I was surprised and disappointed that the Government rejected the recommendation for a higher maximum sentence of five years, and I again ask the Minister to go back to the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to see whether we can get it increased, because six months is too low.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has also had a conversation with the Government Whips, because on 24 February we considered the Second Reading of my Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill, which would have increased the sentencing period to five years, but unfortunately it was objected to by the Government Whips. I hope he is putting pressure on them as well.

[Neil Parish]

I certainly talk to Whips, but whether they listen is another matter, of course—although I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) listens to every word I say. The hon. Lady makes a serious point, however; it is not good to talk out such Bills, as there is a legitimate reason for increasing the sentence. If we took a straw poll of all MPs, irrespective of their party, I am sure the vast majority would agree that the sentencing is too low at present; we have to find a method of increasing that. I accept that the Government wanted to come back with some other ideas, and I would be very happy to listen to them, but the sentencing period must be much more than the current six months.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that we also need to make sure that children understand in school about the impacts of and problems with treating animals badly?

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is absolutely right to consider what our schools can do to teach young people not to treat animals cruelly.

I have been told that I have only 15 minutes and that I ought to get on with my speech, so I shall try to make a little progress. DEFRA has said that average sentences for animal cruelty are relatively stable, but I fear that that is a cop-out. Judges should have the flexibility to give higher sentences for the worst examples of animal cruelty, both as a well-deserved punishment and as a deterrent to other potential animal abusers.

Anyone who can seriously injure a sentient being such as a dog or a cat can do the same to a human. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting a link between the abuse of animals and violence against people. In the USA, the FBI has begun tracking incidents of animal abuse as part of its national incident-based reporting system, which collects data on crime. As part of our report on animal welfare, the EFRA Committee has recommended that a new abuse register should be established for those convicted of animal abuse offences, that those convicted of cruelty should never be allowed to keep animals again, and that the police should have access to those files in light of the link between animal and human abuse.

In addition to discussing sentencing for cruelty, the Committee went on to consider third-party sales of puppies. I believe that a ban on third-party sales will improve the condition of dogs sold in the UK. Unscrupulous dealers currently go to some lengths to pose as responsible breeders in order to sell animals to unsuspecting buyers. Buyers must see the puppy with its mother. Many dealers set up a false home, as a reassurance to potential buyers, which is then vacated so that they cannot be traced. The sad reality is that anyone who is selling a puppy indirectly, through a licensed pet shop, has no regard for the welfare of their puppies. A responsible breeder would never sell through a pet shop licence holder, because it has a negative impact on the welfare of puppies.

By allowing third-party sales, the Government are contradicting their own advice. They advise buyers to ensure that they see the puppy with its mother, yet buying from a third-party seller does not allow this. By banning third-party sales, the public would have to buy directly from breeders. This would allow buyers to assess the premises for themselves, which would drive up animal welfare standards. The Committee visited a puppy farm in Wales, and the conditions there were not good, to say the least. If buyers had to go there to get their puppies, I feel sure that something would be done about that. Also, the people producing those puppies were getting about £200 each for them, whereas the dealers in Birmingham were selling them for £700 to £800, and sometimes as much as £1,000. There is a real problem there, and I am extremely disappointed that the Government have rejected our recommendation for a ban on third-party sales. Since the EFRA Committee published its report, many more animal organisations have come out in favour of a ban on such sales. Pup Aid has always been a vocal supporter of a ban, and the RSPCA has recently changed its mind on the issue.

In February, the Government announced tougher new breeding licensing rules. These include making it completely illegal to sell puppies younger than eight weeks old, and requiring anyone breeding and selling three or more litters of puppies a year to apply for a formal licence. That is a good start, but it does not go far enough. In addition to increasing maximum sentences and banning third-party sales, the Government should consider a reduction in the threshold for licensing a breeder from three litters a year to two litters a year, and the introduction of a new national inspectorate to assist local authorities and give the new regulations a powerful enforcer. It is too easy for unscrupulous dealers to fall outside the regulatory regime. As I have stated, a new abuse register should also be established for those convicted of animal abuse offences. I also believe that the Government should look not only at dog breeders but at cat breeders, who are not currently licensed at all. Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and our pets deserve nothing less than the very highest animal welfare standards. I look forward to hearing the strong representations of my colleagues throughout the debate, especially those who have intervened on me.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

In chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am fortunate to have great members who are supportive and good at attending, and five of them really contributed to today’s debate. I thank everybody on both sides of the House for their contributions. We have been a united force in wanting stiffer sentencing, and many have called for a ban on third-party puppy sales. We also want to ensure that we stop the importation of puppies through our ports, so that illegal puppies are not brought into this country. I thank the Minister for his support, but I want more from the Government on stronger sentencing. We want action. I also thank the shadow Minister for her support. We have had a really good debate, and I thank all Members for supporting the report. We need action now. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is 10 years old and needs a lot of tightening up. We are a nation that loves animals, but unfortunately there are people out there who do not, and they must be dealt with strongly. All Members across the House have made that point clear this afternoon.

Finally, I thank the Kennel Club, the BVA, the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, the RSPCA, the SSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Dogs Trust and the staff of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for helping to put the report together and for giving evidence. Following our report, I look forward to the Government taking even greater action than they already have.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that current penalties for animal welfare offences in England are among the lowest in Europe; believes that while the Government’s plans for a new licensing regime for dogs in England is welcome the Government should consider a ban on the third party sale of dogs; and calls on the Government to increase the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences to five years, as recommended in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s Third Report, Animal welfare in England: domestic pets, HC 117.

Food Labelling

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of food labelling.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Accurate food labelling is vital to UK food producers and consumers. It is important in ensuring that there is a fair, functioning market in the sector. It enables products to compete on a fair basis—especially given that imports are often made to lower quality, with poorer animal welfare standards. It allows consumers to make informed choices about how they want to buy, without being misled. As the 2013 horsemeat scandal demonstrated, our labelling regime has an impact on consumers and businesses in every community in the country. Of course it also has a particular impact on farming and food manufacturing businesses and the wider rural economy.

The Minister’s Department calculates that the value of food and farming to the economy is about £108 billion, and the sector employs one in eight members of the total workforce. The strength of British agriculture is essential to maintaining food security and to the conservation, through its vital role in land management, of the countryside and landscapes. A strong farming sector also sustains rural communities, especially in more remote areas where there may be fewer alternative sources of employment. I know that the Government are committed to supporting the agriculture sector, and that support is all the more important as we face the challenges and opportunities of leaving the European Union.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

rose—

[Julian Sturdy]

I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for obtaining this excellent debate. It is great that we have high standards of animal welfare, but they cost the industry money; does he agree that, as we get new trade deals and leave the European Union, we must be certain to label products securely so that we can stop imports coming in if they do not meet our standards? We should properly label our products; otherwise our farming community and food industry will be seriously disadvantaged.

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree, and that is exactly why I wanted to have the debate now. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen a copy of my speech; but he is right. There will be opportunities and challenges for the food and farming sector in leaving the European Union. Developing a comprehensive and accurate food labelling regime is an indispensable element of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

That is another excellent point in what is indeed an important debate. I entirely agree: this is about making sure that labelling is accurate and fair to the producer and the consumer—so that the latter can make a properly informed choice. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that is not always the case.

I firmly believe that withdrawal from the EU must not mean going back on the progress that we have made.

[Neil Parish]

Will my hon. Friend indulge me again?

[Julian Sturdy]

I am not making much headway, but I am happy to give way.

[Neil Parish]

On the point about mislabelling, there is a big chain in this city and others that sells Angus beef, which I suspect is not Aberdeen Angus, from either Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom, but mostly south American. I suspect that because it is labelled Angus beef, a lot of people eating it think that it is home-grown Angus beef.

[Julian Sturdy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know exactly the places that he is talking about; I cannot say I have frequented them, but I know where they are and they stand out very well in the capital. What he says is right, and it goes back to the point made earlier. It is a question of consumer choice, but consumers want accurate information—whether online or in restaurants—so that they can make an informed choice about the products they buy.

The three main types of origin label are country of origin, method of production and method of slaughter. In this short debate—I am already running out of time—I intend to concentrate mainly on country of origin labelling, because I feel it is both the category for which accurate labelling is most important and because a British product is already guaranteed to be made to some of the highest standards of quality and animal welfare in the world. While accurate labelling is obviously important for producers, we also know that it matters deeply to consumers. It is therefore only right that labelling is clear and accurate.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures from 2016 show that just under 40% of shoppers check food labels for national origin, while separate research suggests that figure rises to 47% for meat products—double the percentage who look at nutritional information. Under EU rules, country of origin labelling is currently mandatory for unprocessed pork, sheep, beef, goat’s meat, shellfish, poultry, most fruit and vegetables, wine, honey and olive oil. That is a fairly recent development for sheep, pigs, goats and poultry, applying only since April 2015.

The bottom line is that the substance of these regulations must be preserved as the bare minimum when we cease to be an EU member state; promoting “brand Britain” through our exports will become all the more important as we move towards the exit door. I also believe that the Government must act to remedy existing problems with these regulations once they have the power to do so independently. As the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was told last year during its “Farmgate prices” inquiry, EU rules allow for the national origin of meat to be given as the country where the last significant change in production took place and not where the animal spent all of its life. For me, that does not amount to a fair, common-sense definition of national origin.

Published in May last year, the Government’s response to the Committee’s report said that they were

“continuing to press at EU level for mandatory country of origin labelling for staple food products.”

The wide scope of action that that suggests is very welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am very aware of the issues around the London convention. We are looking at it very closely and will be able to comment on it in the near future.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

There is no doubt that when we went into the EU back in the 1970s fishermen had a very poor deal on the amount of fish they could catch and on quotas. Is there not now a real opportunity to ensure we have better access to our waters and to larger quantities of fish, so that the industry can progress much further?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right that leaving the EU presents enormous opportunities for UK fishers. We will seek to get the best possible deal in our negotiations.

Future Flood Prevention

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to open today’s estimates debate on the future of flood prevention. Flooding is one of those issues that is rarely considered until it actually happens. When the weather is dry, we talk about drought, and as soon as it starts to rain we have to deal with floods. In the round, we have to deal with both. Because of that, it can be tempting for the Government sometimes to disregard flood defences and resilience measures when the weather is much drier and budgets are under pressure. I believe, and the Select Committee believes, that this would be a grave error.

Effective flood defences, both hard and soft, are a vital part of this country’s infrastructure. With the UK’s experience over the years of more severe storms as climate change continues, flooding is likely only to get worse. We have recently seen the high tide that came down the eastern side of the country. Fortunately, this did not cause massive flooding, but it might well do in the future. I was flooded back in the ’80s and particularly 1981, when we lost a lot of sheep after huge tidal floods in the west of the country. When the barriers are overcome, we must have the right infrastructure in place.

In November 2016, the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published its “Future flood prevention” report. We found that flood prevention work in the UK is fragmented, can be inefficient and sometimes ineffective, and has let people down. The winter of 2015-16 broke rainfall records, and storms Desmond, Eva and Frank disrupted communities across northern parts of the UK, particularly Cumbria and York. Storm Desmond alone cost the UK more than £5 billion, but the impact is not just economic. It is very much about individual businesses, individual residents and all those hugely affected by flooding—and sometimes about the amount of time it can take to get people back into their homes or to get their businesses up and running again. Many communities live in fear that a disaster is just one downpour away.

There is no doubt that we are now encountering long periods of dry weather, followed by a huge amount of rain—200 or 300 mm in just 20 or 30 hours. Believe it or not, I do not blame the Minister or the Government for that amount of rainfall coming down so quickly, but we do need to be aware that it can happen and we need to be ready to try to mitigate some of the worst of the disaster that happens when we get these very high levels of rainfall occurring over a very short period.

I personally understand the concerns of many parts of the country that experience being under water for perhaps many months. We need to reflect only on what has happened in the past. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) will talk later about what happened in Somerset, when a huge amount of water fell and remained for up to three months, devastating not only property, but the land. A huge amount of debris was created, and the vegetation and much of the wildlife was lost. This was a disaster not only from a residential and farming point of view, but from a conservation point of view.

While frontline staff and rescue service workers worked tirelessly to support those affected, our system for managing flood risk can and does fail on occasions. That is why I want to talk about the importance of the recommendations that our Select Committee made in our “Future flood prevention” report. I shall touch briefly on the Government’s response and on what action DEFRA has taken to date. I shall conclude by outlining what the Committee believes the Government must do to improve the situation further.

What, then, were our recommendations? We recommended to the Government how to reduce the flood risk to 5 million people and we looked into the “one in 100 years” flood and how to deal with risk. One problem is that, if we are not careful, people living in an area with a “one in 100 years” risk which is flooded are inclined to think that they will be safe from floods for another 99 years. Of course, that is not the case. An area with a high flood risk will continue to have that risk until better defences are created or resilience measures are introduced, and it will probably always be a pretty high-risk area.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is bringing back a great many memories of those terrible floods. Does he agree that communication is very important? One of the points made in the Select Committee report was that perhaps we should stop using the “one in 100 years” terminology. We should adopt a way of warning people about how serious floods are that does not involve years, because the current terminology is misleading.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence that the Committee took, and what we heard from people who came to talk to us, suggested that it is very helpful when communities are able to get together and warn each other about exactly what is happening. The Environment Agency and others can give the warnings, and the agency, the fire brigade and local authority staff are there to help, but the flooded communities themselves have built up a resilience that will help them in the future.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to flood wardens? Earby, in my constituency, was badly affected by flooding, and is now waiting for three different schemes to be introduced by the Environment Agency this year. Flood warnings, local flood plans, floodgates, and all the work that those volunteers do is extremely important to the response when flood waters start to rise.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is right. Local authorities, the Environment Agency and the drainage boards can do a great deal, but when local people come together, they know exactly what is happening on the ground, and flood wardens can react very quickly.

In Axminster, a shopping trolley went into a culvert and became full of wood. The whole place flooded, including three or four bungalows. If someone local had been there to hoick—I am not sure whether that is a word in the English language—the trolley out of the culvert, the flood would have been stopped. Such actions also ensure that resources go further. We are learning all the time.

One of the Committee’s most important recommendations was for a more holistic approach. It sounds obvious, but we need to work with nature rather than against it. If we slow the flow of the water by using natural remedies such as planting more trees, restoring wetlands and improving soil management, we are likely to see more and better flood prevention. We must allow water to flood fields naturally sometimes if they are on a natural flood plain rather than in an urban area. That would be a much cheaper and more cost-effective way of preventing floods.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as we think about how we ought to spend our farming subsidies in the wake of Brexit, we should look to them to address the issue that he has mentioned? They could perhaps enable farmers to allow their fields to be flooded sometimes as a form of natural flood defence.

[Neil Parish]

I think the hon. Lady must have X-ray sight, because the next paragraph of my notes refers to how we deal with farming and farmers. Now that we need not follow the common agricultural policy exactly, we have an opportunity to introduce a cost-effective measure to allow farmers to store water when they are able to do so. If they have to store it for a short period and it is on grassland, it will probably have very little effect on their crops and profitability, but if it has to be stored on arable land for a long period, they will require more compensation. We need to consider that in some detail, and I believe that we shall have an opportunity to do so.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s speech. Is he familiar with the practice undertaken by some local authorities of diverting floodwater from roads on to farmers’ fields without permission, thus washing away topsoil of the sort that I think he is about to touch on, and also potentially introducing pollutants into sensitive sites?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are going to allow water to go out on to land in order to save a town or a village from flooding, the landowner first needs to know about it and, secondly, needs to be able to manage it properly, and it has to be done by agreement. Sometimes, naturally, these things are done in exceptional circumstances, but, once done, there needs to be a plan if that needs to be done again in the future. Agricultural land can be very useful for storing water, but we must remember that it is also used for growing crops and keeping stock, and therefore we have to be sure that the farmer can farm that land, as well as manage it for water. That is why we need to deal with this by agreement.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, we had severe flooding in the Ribble valley and throughout Lancashire in 2015. He mentions agricultural land: on Friday, along with the Woodland Trust and the Ribble Rivers Trust, I planted some trees along one of the river banks. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look again at the number of trees being planted, and the usefulness of planting trees in stopping soil erosion and, indeed, holding a lot of the water that otherwise would go to the ground?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, because it is not just about planting the trees; it is also about where we plant them. If we plant them along the edges of the fields or the banks of the streams and rivers, we can hold back the water and hold back the soil. Very often, the soil and debris being washed from the field is also contributing to the flood. So this is not just about the number of trees; it is about making sure we are smart in where we plant them. The way we plant them is important, too. We visited the north of England, and when the old Forestry Commission was planting trees it turned the soil up and put it up into a furrow and planted the trees on the top of it. The only trouble is that there are then two gullies either side of it, which then allow the water to run down very quickly if the trees are planted on a slope. Therefore, over the years there are many things we can do, but my hon. Friend makes a very good point that this is about planting trees, holding that soil back and holding the water back long enough for the major flood to go through, and that was what much of the work was done on.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is talking about soil, and I cannot let the moment pass without intervening to stress that soil is a very important part of our ecosystem. Does my hon. Friend agree that we lose it in floodwater at our peril, because it is the lifeblood that we use to grow our crops?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend will also be very aware that many fields only have so much topsoil on them, and it is the topsoil that is fertile and that we grow our crop in. Therefore, if farmers lose much of their topsoil to the streams and rivers, they have lost a lot of the very fertile soil in their fields. I think most farmers, when presented with a plan that can save their topsoil and the way they manage their fields, can see a big advantage in this, but we have to work with the farming community, rather than, as perhaps has sometimes been the case, just imposing our will upon them. If we can persuade them that there are many good reasons for managing soils in a slightly different way, we can perhaps get a lot further with that. We can sometimes use carrots, and not necessarily sticks. I am sure our Minister has many carrots to offer today, and we will be interested to hear about that when she sums up the debate.

We also need to take a closer look at development in built-up areas affected by flood risk. Naturally, we have laws that we hope will restrict most building on floodplains —sometimes it is breached, but on the whole it is not. When an area is flooded, very little of the water has actually landed on the flooded area. It usually comes from higher up. Rather than stopping building in flood-risk areas, we need to think when building developments of several hundred or 1,000 houses about capturing the run-off water from everywhere on those estates, including the roads. It could be captured in ponds or in reservoirs or tanks underneath some of the homes. Building in resilience measures to ensure that the water from a development could be held would make the situation better rather than worse. We can build developments, but we do not always give enough consideration to what is going to happen further downstream.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

A lot of house building is going on in Whalley in my constituency, and one of the conditions was that tanks should be put in before the houses were built. Sadly, the houses seem to be being built and occupied before the tanks have been put in. Does my hon. Friend agree that developers need to take planning conditions seriously and abide by the rules and regulations set down by the local authorities, because of the misery that flooding can cause if they do not get these things right?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes another good point. Planning conditions can be flouted, and they are sometimes not properly enforced. It is sometimes claimed that resilience measures cannot be put in place because of the economic situation, but we must ensure that houses are not built unless those measures are taken. I am sure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister present will pass on that point to her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, because this is a planning matter. If we are going to plan for the developments that we need, we must plan them properly. I do not think that any of us are against development, but we must have the right kind of development and hold the water back. Indeed, if we could make a feature of those measures, we might also create some leisure facilities as well. That would be a planning gain.

The recommendations in our report also include the need for a new governance model to deal with flooding. As part of our inquiry, the EFRA Committee visited the Netherlands to learn how that low-lying country manages flooding. We learned that 25% of the land there is below sea level, and that half of its 17 million population live in flood-prone areas, so they know a lot about flooding. The threat of flooding led to local government and water management being administered hand in hand from as early as the 13th century. As the threat of flooding in the UK grows, we need to borrow some ideas from the Dutch and to mirror their focus on dealing with floods locally and nationally. The fens in this country were drained by Dutch engineers, as was the part of Somerset where I still have my farm. They know exactly how to deal with water, because if they did not deal with it, they would not have a country. It is as simple as that.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that many of the things in this very useful report from the EFRA Committee were being discussed in this House a dozen years ago and have still not been implemented? An example is the recommendation about “building back better” that appears in paragraph 60 of the report. I discussed that matter with the Association of British Insurers in, from memory, 2006, but we have made almost no progress on it. Since then, the Labour Government and the coalition Government have cut spending on flood defences.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have tried to ensure that the report is not party political. Under the last Labour Government, the spending on flooding went down in dry times and up in wet times. The same thing happened under the coalition. We can argue about the figures, but they very much follow that same pattern. The report recommends learning from what has happened and putting in the proper resilience measures.

As I said, the report discussed the Dutch system. The idea would be to set up a regional flood and coastal board and then involve local authorities and local drainage boards, where they exist, and then landowners and businesses in order to have a broad catchment basis. As such, the Government should completely overhaul flood risk management, to include a new English rivers and coastal authority that is accountable for the delivery of flood protection. The Netherlands has a flood commissioner who is answerable to the Dutch Parliament and at a local level, which provides real focus. We may not need a full management system like that of the Dutch, but we can learn many things from it, such as how to alter the system through the Environment Agency and others to make it more answerable to Parliament, local authorities, drainage boards and landowners. I am convinced that, until we get a system that works from the top down and from the bottom up, we will not make the best use of our resources, because they will always be pressed. The commissioner would be able to hold those carrying out flood prevention work to account for their performance, because we have to get the best value for money.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The report states that firefighters provide a vital “first-line service” to flooded areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should go further towards making that a statutory duty? That has been asked for throughout the past 12 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) said. Why can we not do this? Scotland has done it, Northern Ireland has done it, and I think Wales is about to do it. Surely it must happen.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is behind her, will be making some good points about the fire service. The Committee took evidence from the fire services, and their work on flooding and the time they put in are not always recognised. The Environment Agency has large pumps that can move huge volumes of water over short distances, but the fire services can pump out people’s properties and deal with things on the ground. That is not recognised enough within the system, and there is work to be done on that. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply to that point. By overhauling the way we manage the whole system, we can go a long way to minimising the devastating toll of flooding on local areas and local people.

Unfortunately, the Government’s response, which was published last month, was a little disappointing. It was not up to standard and addressed our key recommendations in only a cursory manner. We then asked for more information from Ministers in time for this debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the Committee on 16 February. We welcome her commitment to record and report, from 2018-19 onwards, on how many schemes include natural flood management. That will be important, because we must ensure that more such management is carried out. We welcome that step, but we also welcome the commitment to refresh the national flood and coastal erosion management strategy for England, which we hope will reflect many of our inquiry’s findings.

The report recommended some actions and, to be fair to the Government, DEFRA has made progress on some of those issues, including on catchment scale approaches and embedding natural flood management more firmly in flood management plans. Local partnerships have also made progress on co-ordinating action in some river basins. I think the Government agree with the Select Committee that not all flood areas fit neatly into local authority boundaries and that we need to introduce catchment areas to hold the water. We will need to speed up the water in some areas to get it out to sea, and in other areas we will need to slow the water down by introducing leaky dams to hold the water. Some areas will need to be dredged or desilted—whatever language we want to use—to get the water flowing more quickly.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech. Does he recognise the work of the Environment Agency along the Medway river and its excellent work, as he rightly says, on bringing together stakeholders from across the area so that we have a theme of continuous progress, rather than the bittiness where one area is fixed only to flood an area further downstream?

[Neil Parish]

I welcome the Environment Agency’s work on the Medway, where the water can move quite quickly. If we are not careful, the water will move too quickly and flood areas further downstream. Such work is essential.

Throughout the inquiry we saw that one size does not fit all. Some areas need the water to be slowed down, and other areas need it to be speeded up. We have to deal with it catchment area by catchment area. Of course it is fascinating that, before too long, we will probably move into more of a drought situation and will be talking about how to use our rivers to move water around so that we have enough water. For my first two years in this House, between 2010 and 2012, the Select Committee talked about nothing but drought. It was only when it started raining in 2012 and did not stop for two years that we talked about floods.

On funding for flood risk management, the Government have committed to a six-year programme with a capital budget of £2.5 billion. Although welcoming that increased funding, our report noted that it is unlikely to deliver sufficient protection in future decades. We stated that, by the end of 2017, the Government must publish their 25-year ambition for flood risk reduction and the cost of securing that reduction against different climate change scenarios. Disappointingly, the Government rejected that recommendation. The public need to know how their communities will be affected in coming years, and plans need to be put in place to ensure that they will be protected against flood risk. Flood risk comes not only from freshwater that falls in the form of rain but from coastal flooding, too.

We initially recommended that catchment scale measures be adopted on a much wider scale, and DEFRA is doing more to promote such approaches by, for example, trialling natural flood management measures—such as installing leaky dams, planting trees and improving soil management—alongside other measures. We welcome that, as well as the additional £15 million of funding in the autumn statement.

However, we need more detail on how much of the £2.5 billion capital programme for flood risk management will use natural flood management. The Minister’s commitment to include that indicator in reporting from 2018-19 is therefore welcome, but we would welcome more information on how she plans to ensure that every catchment area uses natural flood management to the maximum extent appropriate to its river basin. We saw that the Netherlands has re-meandered some rivers and is storing more water in the rivers, as well as on farmland.

I look forward to Members’ contributions to the debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s summing-up.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has asked the Environment Agency to talk less and do more, which would be great. In fairness, I pay tribute to the work of the agency and its staff during the floods. Our report states that we need action from top to bottom.

I also thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for the contribution of the Environmental Audit Committee, and I thank the members of the Environmental Audit Committee, the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and all other Members who have spoken today. It is important that we get flood protection right, because when it rains homes and businesses flood. We have to ensure that every £1 spent centrally and locally is spent well. Local drainage boards, local authorities and local landowners can do a great deal more to alleviate floods, and farmers can do more to hold water.

I look forward to all of us working together in this House to deliver better flood protection.

Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Greyhound Welfare

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2015-16, Greyhound Welfare, HC 478, and the Government response, HC 133.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. There are around 15,000 active racing greyhounds in the UK today. Although there has been a sustained decline in the popularity of greyhound racing in recent decades, the sport continues to draw crowds and in 2014 it supported a £1.3 billion off-course turnover for bookmakers. I will concentrate a little later on the amount of money being made from the betting on greyhounds and ask whether enough of it is getting back to support greyhound welfare and retirement.

Animal welfare standards expected by the public today are higher than at any time in the past. However, within the greyhound industry, there are sometimes two conflicting priorities—the welfare and integrity standards during a dog’s racing career; and the view of a greyhound as a commercial betting asset. The Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 introduced minimum standards for all greyhound tracks in the country.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its report on greyhound welfare in February. It focused on the effectiveness of the 2010 regulations and their success in safeguarding racing greyhound welfare standards. It was timely, as it fed into the Government’s overdue review of the 2010 regulations, which was published in September.

I will focus today on three of the Committee’s recommendations: the need for greater transparency; kennelling standards away from the track, as well as on the track; and the financing of the industry. Greyhound racing tracks operate within a hybrid or two-tier system. The majority of racing tracks—24—are licensed by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, or GBGB. That means that they operate under the GBGB’s rules of racing and are subject to inspection by the organisation. The standards that the GBGB sets at tracks are also independently accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, and supported by the work of track veterinarians. Any track that meets the required standards may apply to be licensed by the GBGB.

In England, there are also a small number of independent tracks that are not licensed by the GBGB but regulated and inspected by local authorities. These tracks mostly cater for local hobbyists, who keep racing greyhounds mainly as a hobby.

Although different licensing arrangements exist, tracks under both systems must comply with the 2010 regulations. I accept that those regulations have succeeded in improving the welfare of greyhounds at tracks, but there is still much to be done. More transparency is definitely needed in the industry. There are currently no sources of reliable data on greyhound welfare in the public domain. It is therefore difficult to assess accurately the current level of welfare provision or to gauge improvements or deterioration over time.

The Dogs Trust believes that approximately 3,500 greyhounds are unaccounted for every year in the UK. However, as statistics are not published, the true scale of the problem is difficult to assess. The regulations must be amended to require the publication of essential welfare data relating to injury, euthanasia and rehoming. DEFRA’s approach is to rely on a non-regulatory agreement with the Greyhound Board of Great Britain to publish statistics from 2018.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw the “Panorama” documentary that showed a continuing problem with doping in the industry. I know that the board carries out some random drug testing, but doping is still very much being used by unscrupulous owners to speed up or in some cases slow down the dogs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we need much more information about the extent to which doping is a problem and that we need action to tackle it?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Committee visited a GBGB track and we also went to an independent track. While we were at the GBGB track we saw the doping testing taking place. We saw the vets checking the welfare of the greyhound and its ability to race. On the day we went I do not think we could fault the amount of testing and inspection that was going on, but we want to be absolutely certain that on the days when we do not attend the track, the same process is taking place. When it comes to doping, welfare and how many greyhounds are racing, the transparency of the data will tell us where the greyhounds are and how many there are so that if there is a problem we can have the greyhounds tested afterwards as well. There is a real issue.

After what we saw, we believe that the industry is in some ways moving in the right direction and is perhaps not as prone to as much doping as has taken place in the past, but we want to be absolutely certain that it does not take place. It is not only the welfare of the greyhound that is at stake. Doping is an attempt to distort genuine greyhound racing and the result of the race.

I call on the Minister to explain why statistics will not be published until 2018 when the data are already available. In addition, the Government’s latest regulation review did not take the opportunity to extend transparency of reporting to the independent tracks in England. From the industry’s point of view and for the welfare of the greyhound it would be so good to have those figures. If there is nothing to hide, why on earth can we not have the figures sooner? I know that the Minister is very keen on animal welfare. If we had transparency, many of us would feel happier about the situation.

Kennelling is important not only at the track but at the trainers’ kennels. Greyhounds spend approximately 95% of their time at trainers’ kennels. There are pressing welfare issues facing the industry away from the track, and kennelling arrangements differ substantially between the two systems. Although the Government have a non-regulatory agreement with the industry to develop a standard for trainers’ kennels, we are extremely concerned that there is no requirement for this to be used by the independent greyhound sector. Independent trainers’ kennels do not require licensing or inspection. We have concerns that the 2010 regulations do not go beyond racing tracks.

In our report, we urge the Government to extend the 2010 regulations beyond racetracks to cover standards at all trainers’ kennels—both GBGB and independent trainers’ kennels. We recommend that common welfare standards be developed for all kennels and that an independent body verify those standards. The Government are not treating this issue with the severity it deserves. We are disappointed that DEFRA has not recommended extending kennelling standards to the independent greyhound sector as part of its post-implementation review.

I now turn to the financing of greyhound welfare and the role of bookmakers. Greyhounds are bred for the sole purpose of racing—in other words, to provide a betting product. In our eyes, this means that bookmakers have some responsibility to support post-racing welfare, particularly in the area of rehoming. The bookmaking industry made a net profit of some £230 million from greyhound racing in 2014 with a margin of 18%—a margin that is significantly higher and less volatile than a number of other sports. It paid back around £33 million to the greyhound industry in fees for the rights to televise races, and a voluntary contribution for greyhound welfare was paid by some bookmakers.

There has been a decline in the voluntary levy in the past 10 years. In 2015 contributions were £6.9 million, down from £14 million in real terms almost a decade ago. This income stream is threatened by the growth of online and overseas betting operations, which do not tend to make the voluntary contributions. Greyhound racing is currently at the whim of bookmakers who may choose to contribute or not. The voluntary system allows bookmakers to walk away from their responsibility to the industry if the industry tries to increase the levy.

High welfare standards require financing. The onus should be on bookmakers who profit from greyhound racing to contribute financially to improving standards. I understand that discussions between the industry and bookmakers regarding the voluntary levy have now broken down. The Committee calls on the Government to introduce a statutory levy of 1% of gross turnover. This would provide a more stable income stream for animal welfare activities and create an even playing field between contributing bookmakers.

I would go as far as to say that we ought to name the bookmakers who make a contribution to greyhound welfare and those who do not. The bookies who do the right thing are contributing and ought to get some credit for it. The names of those who do not contribute should be made public. In the end, we have to make sure that there is enough money for rehoming. We have very good greyhound rehoming charities that do great work, but they need support, especially from the industry.

We went greyhound racing and we saw the race run in a reasonable way. We saw the greyhounds being checked, including when they came off the track, and we could see very little problem with the race. However, lots and lots of money is being made in online gambling. Therefore it is essential that online gambling should pay a contribution; if the race did not take place, it would not make its money. It should help with rehoming and looking after greyhounds when they finish racing. That is the biggest problem with greyhound racing: they are bred and reared for racing, but what happens to them when they finish? Are they to be discarded or euthanized, or rehomed? We need accurate figures, and enough money for the animal welfare and rehoming organisations to be able to take the greyhounds.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I have been looking at my notes and I notice that in paragraph 79 of the report we named Betfair as one of the organisations that are shirking their responsibility. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point that we should congratulate contributors and name and shame those who do not contribute.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who if I may say so is a great member of the Select Committee, for that point. We want to be able to publish the names of those such as Betfair that do not contribute; let us also name the organisations that do, and see what happens. I think there would be a public outcry, and those that do not contribute would be more likely to do so. We want to be assured that when the greyhounds have finished their racing career, they will be properly retired and rehomed, and there will be money to help with that. That is essential.

If greyhounds are injured in their racing career, there should be enough money to pay veterinary expenses, so that those that are able to can have a fulfilling life in retirement, and will not be euthanized just because that is the easiest thing to do. We did not conclude that we wanted to ban all greyhound racing, but we felt that there was more to be done with respect to breeding, retirement and making sure that greyhounds that have finished racing have a decent life. It is therefore essential that all parts of the betting industry should contribute.

The Committee expects the greyhound industry and its regulator to make progress on the publication of injury, traceability, retirement and euthanasia data, as I have said. Trainers’ kennels should also be inspected to a new transparent public standard. A two-year period to deliver those changes is reasonable. However, the EFRA Committee would expect an update from the GBGB within that timescale. Independent tracks are regulated by local authorities, not by the GBGB. Therefore, there is a gap in accountability and regulation. Local authorities should look to using DEFRA’s imminent consultation on updating animal establishment licensing as an opportunity to raise standards in the independent sector.

The Committee believes that the betting industry must increase its contributions. Bookmakers profiting from greyhound racing have a clear responsibility to support greyhound welfare. If a voluntary agreement cannot be struck with bookmakers, we recommend that the Government introduce a statutory levy of 1% across the industry. That would work in a similar way to the horserace betting levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We do not have a timescale, but I believe that the board is developing the standard now. We expect to see it developed, certainly during the course of 2018. Indeed, we have decided to delay the introduction of some of the small legislative requirements necessary until we have had an opportunity to review how the BSI standard is working.

The Government also want the board to deliver on the other commitments it has given to Ministers, which tie in closely with the Select Committee’s recommendations and its proposed two-year probationary period. The board has agreed to begin publishing annually from 2018 figures for the number of dogs injured and euthanised at GBGB tracks and the number of dogs that leave GBGB racing, including an explanation of what “leave” means.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for going into so much detail about our report and how the Government are implementing quite a lot of what we recommended. I just question why it is necessary to wait until 2018 for those figures. Either GBGB has them or it does not. Why can it not bring them about now?

[George Eustice]

I will move on to that point, which my hon. Friend raised in his speech. I had that conversation with GBGB. The 2010 regulations required tracks to record those data as part of the local authority licensing regime and the UKAS regime run by GBGB, but those data were never actually collated centrally by GBGB. When I had that conversation with GBGB to secure its commitment to publish those anonymised data, it undertook to begin collating them forthwith. That happened to be earlier this year, so a full set of annual data will be available at the end of 2017. That is what lies behind GBGB’s commitment to publish the data from 2018. I reassure my hon. Friend that I pressed GBGB to see whether the data could be published earlier, but it explained that it had not yet collated them and they were simply recorded by individual tracks. I took that at face value, and I understand what the board says. If we can get those data published from 2018, that seems an important step forward and will probably achieve things far faster than any regulatory device might.

My hon. Friend also mentioned kennels away from tracks, which I have dealt with already. GBGB is planning to add that to the UKAS accreditation scheme and is developing a BSI standard for it.

My hon. Friend made the good suggestion that it is important that we recognise and give credit to gaming companies that contribute to the voluntary levy. As part of its annual report, the British Greyhound Racing Fund publishes a list of all the bookmakers that contribute to that fund. I do not have a copy of that report with me, but I am reliably informed that it already lists and gives credit to everyone who contributes to the fund. It is open to the industry to name and shame those who do not contribute. Indeed, the industry would probably gain some kudos if it were willing to do that, because I have not heard any Member here express sympathy with people who freeload and do not pay their share. The industry and the racetracks may want to consider that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for his full reply and for endorsing much of what we put in our report. Including me, there are four Members who sit on the Select Committee in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has just left—and the beauty of a Select Committee is that we can look in great depth at what is happening, so we can visit the tracks. I congratulate the Minister on meeting the industry, seeing what is happening and drilling down on that.

First, the greyhound is bred. We then have to ensure that the greyhound is microchipped and that all microchipped greyhounds are registered. Once those greyhounds are registered, we will know what happens to those who have been used for racing when they finish their careers. That is essential. We have got the necessary components together and, as the Minister said, if GBGB can deliver that—it must be delivered by 2018—we will have the data, and then the Retired Greyhound Trust and other greyhound charities will be able to rehome these greyhounds so that they can have a good, decent life.

We also referred to kennelling not only at the tracks but at the trainers’ premises, which is essential. When we went to the tracks, we found that they were reasonably well managed: there was veterinary supervision on the tracks and the greyhounds were inspected. It is what happens to them when they leave the track and when they are at the trainers’ kennels—we must be certain that they are being well looked-after. A greyhound cannot be just a commodity that is used as a racing machine and then discarded at the end of its working life. It has to be looked after properly, and all those who can be rehomed must be rehomed. We must know where they all are. There cannot be a number who are euthanised. From an animal welfare point of view, perhaps some—unfortunately, due to injury—may have to be euthanised, but euthanasia cannot be used as a way of discarding the dog at the end of its working life. Because they are brought in to do a job, they create a great deal of resource for the industry.

I cannot emphasise enough that the gaming industry must step up to the plate. Let us praise to the hilt those who are making a contribution to the retirement of greyhounds, but let us name and shame those who are not. If the betting industry in greyhound racing does not step up to the plate and make a contribution, I urge the Minister, as he said he would at the end of his speech, please to consider some form of legislation. In the meantime, let us name and shame. Let us shout that from the rooftops in this House and beyond, and let us hope that the press coverage we get covers this, which is one of the key points. People who are interested in greyhound racing and want to lay their bets on a race should, please, look at those bookies and see whether they are making that contribution to the retirement of greyhounds.

We can all work together across the parties. What showed today was that, whether we are Members from Scotland, from the Opposition or from whichever party, we all want to see better greyhound racing and better welfare for greyhounds, particularly retired greyhounds. I thank very much the charities who take on the work of rehoming all the greyhounds that it is possible to rehome.

This has been an excellent debate, and I thank the Minister again for his direct input into animal welfare. My final point is that the EFRA Committee must be a good training ground for both Ministers and shadow Ministers, because both the Minister and the shadow Minister were members of the Committee in the previous Parliament. May I wish everybody a very happy Christmas?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2015-16, Greyhound Welfare, HC 478, and the Government response, HC 133.

Air Quality

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2015-16, Air Quality, HC 479, and the Government response, HC 665.

Thank you for chairing this sitting, Mr Betts. It is lovely to see so many members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee here today to support our work on tackling air quality and our recent report. We took evidence again two days ago on air quality, so this debate is timely. It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport in her place.

Tackling Britain’s air quality problem must be at the top of the Government’s agenda. Poor air quality contributes to around 40,000 to 50,000 early deaths every year in the UK. This is 20 to 30 times the number of people who die on our roads in traffic accidents every year. Poor air quality is a silent killer. In any other area of policy, the Government would be moving heaven and earth to get it sorted out as quickly as possible, and that is what we now need to do. The Government have been in court twice, and twice they have lost their case. This is a matter of urgency for the quality of life of all people in this country, but especially for those who live in our inner cities in hotspots of air pollution.

The Committee’s report in April 2016 said that poor air quality is a public health emergency and called for strong measures to tackle the problem, including an overarching Government strategy to tackle it in all sectors, with flexibility for councils to implement their own clean air zones with higher charges for the most polluting vehicles in those areas, a scrappage scheme for the oldest and most polluting vehicles and proper incentives in the low-emission vehicle market. We have an able Minister here today from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but she is not answerable directly to the Department for Transport or the Department for Communities and Local Government. Everybody—the whole Government, including the Treasury, which deals with vehicle taxation, and others—must work together to deliver a good and urgent response. We want action, not just words.

The Government are in the dock. Having lost their case in the Supreme Court in April 2015 for failing to meet the legal air quality limit, they then lost again on 2 November 2016. The High Court case was brought by the campaign group ClientEarth. The judgment was that the Government had not fully complied with the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling and that their old air quality plan was not up to scratch. DEFRA must now release a new draft plan for air quality by 24 April 2017 and a final report on 31 July 2017—four months away and seven months away.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the Government have twice been pulled kicking and screaming into court to lose cases for breaching EU air quality limits, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that post-Brexit we will not have that regime to ensure mandatory, legally enforceable air quality limits?

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Provided the Government do not tamper with the great repeal Act and that EU legislation automatically becomes UK legislation, there should not be a problem. I do not think the Government would do that for the simple reason that not only would it be wrong, but people in this country expect decent air quality. I think it will rise up the political agenda more and more, and I suspect that trying to water down environmental control on air quality would not be popular with anyone.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 40,000 people are already dying prematurely, so there is no reason to think the Government are treating the matter seriously or that post-Brexit they will fulfil the legal obligations they are being dragged into court to fulfil?

[Neil Parish]

We have two years at the very least before we leave the European Union. The case is being made that the Government must be answerable with a proper plan by July 2017, so I think much of this will be driven before we leave the EU. I still believe they would be very unwise and careless to try to water down legislation on air quality when people are becoming much more aware of the situation. It is reducing life expectancy and all Governments of whatever colour will be asked to commit to policies to improve air quality dramatically.

The High Court case was brought by ClientEarth. To lose once in the Court could be seen as careless; to lose twice is negligent. The Under-Secretary told the EFRA Committee that the High Court case was a wake-up call. How many more wake-up calls do the Government need? Urgent action is needed now to address the problem once and for all.

On Tuesday, the EFRA Committee held a fresh evidence session on air quality with the Under-Secretary who is here today and the Minister of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). The Under-Secretary said that air quality is a top priority for her and the Transport Minister. We need evidence, but in this case I am afraid the Committee was unconvinced by the evidence we heard on Tuesday that there is enough urgency in the Government’s policy. The Minister repeatedly emphasised the role of local government in tackling air pollution and that is absolutely correct, but we must make sure the Government give the necessary powers and in some cases the necessary resources for that to happen. The Committee fears that, as happens under all Governments of all persuasions, it is easy to say, “It’s all in the hands of local government; it’s not in our hands.” Then local government turns round to central Government and says, “The Government haven’t done enough. We don’t have enough resource or the necessary legislation.”

We cannot keep arguing about whose problem it is, because it is the Government—it is DEFRA—that is in the dock, and in the end we have to answer for it. I do sympathise with this Minister, because she has to, and I am sure will, work with all other Departments, but getting all Departments to work together is a challenge in itself. However, we must do that, because in the end people will die prematurely if we do not sort it.

We talk in the recommendations about a diesel scrappage scheme. That is for older diesel cars in particular. The Government should consider a scrappage scheme. We had evidence on Tuesday from witnesses who talked about that. I do not want to make it too complicated, but perhaps it could be targeted slightly at income as well, because what often happens with a scrappage scheme if we are not careful is this. The professional middle-class people think, “Well, this is a very good time to change our car. We have a car or two that are older and we can have a new car.” The problem is that many people in our inner cities who are driving older cars may not necessarily have the income, even with a scrappage scheme, to go out and buy a new car. Perhaps if we could target a scrappage scheme not only at diesel cars but at those who can least afford a new car, we could do something about the problem.

In addition, it is now possible to convert many diesel cars to liquid petroleum gas. That cuts their emissions by about 70%, but again, is it really wise to spend a lot of money on an older diesel car?

The current—illegal—Government plan provides for only five compulsory clean air zones, but we know that pollution in dozens of areas elsewhere in England exceeds EU limits. That is why the Government must look at the whole country when considering hotspots, which is where the high levels of pollution are. The answer to a written question that I tabled to DEFRA is that a full 40% of councils in the UK breached nitrogen dioxide limits in the last year. The problem is widespread in our country; it is not just in our biggest towns. All local authorities should have the power, and the funding, to implement clean air zones if they wish to. In October, the Government provided a £3 million fund for local authorities to bid from to improve air quality. That is a start, but it is a very small amount of money, considering the number of areas that will need clean air zones.

As I said, we had the Transport Minister before us on Tuesday. The interesting thing that the Government have not yet accepted totally is that, not quite for a generation but probably for 15 years or more, there has been a push towards diesel cars. It has been advantageous to have “cleaner” diesel: people pay less road tax, and diesel cars emit less carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and are much more fuel-efficient than many petrol cars. Previously, the issue was carbon dioxide; now, it is very much nitric dioxide, so we have to start moving the taxation system away from supporting the diesel engine and towards hybrids, clean petrols and electric cars. A grant system is in place—I will talk about that in a minute—but we also need to use a bit of a stick in order to move people away from diesel cars. I understand the position because I have diesel cars; indeed, many of us in this Chamber will have. It is a fairly clean diesel, but we have to start to say to people, “You have to try to change your philosophy from diesel to petrol to hybrid to electric.”

Since the Volkswagen scandal, we know that many emission figures were completely fictional. We have only to pick up a new car magazine. There are various ones out there, and they will give us a list of the manufacturer’s claims. They will say, “This car will do 68 miles to the gallon,” and then they will say, “True figure: 45—Government figure.”

There is no doubt that we have to get away from that. It is not just Volkswagen making such claims; all sorts of people are making the claims. It is just that Volkswagen is the one that got caught. In the end, we have to have a true figure, so that when people go to buy a car, they know what the pollution levels are and how many miles to the gallon it will do. This applies to anything else that is bought and sold in life. Surely it is against the Trade Descriptions Act that we are buying something when the claim about it is not actually true. We need to do much more on that. The Government must ensure that vehicle companies’ marketing claims are fully accurate and reflect real-world conditions. When devising the new plan, the Government must take into account the most accurate figures on vehicle emissions. If the new figures show an even greater need for additional clean air zones, the Government must act accordingly.

[Geraint Davies]

On the VW scandal, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Justice in the US took VW to court on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency and is suing it for $12 billion, but I think that in Britain the figure is £1.1 million. Does he not think that through the British Government and, indeed, across Europe we should be taking firmer action against VW, given that we know the emissions are 40 times the EU limits because of the removal of the defeat devices, and that is literally killing thousands and thousands of people across Britain and Europe?

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I suspect that the Americans took the case for various reasons—not just because of the pollution from the vehicles, but because they wanted to ensure that European vehicles did not get so much into the American market. However, we have missed an opportunity to drill down on Volkswagen. As I said, on Tuesday we had the Transport Minister before us, who said that the Government are now looking to sue Volkswagen. It is good if they are, but we should have got on to that more quickly. Look at the congestion charges that people have paid. If their vehicle was more polluting than was suggested by the band that the vehicle was in, surely Transport for London has missed out on extra charges that should have been paid.

To go back to my previous point, I believe that if an individual has been sold a car that has not met the standards, they should be compensated also. This is not just about the Government; there is a case for the individual, too. I have some sympathy for Volkswagen because it is the one having to face the music, but if we take action against Volkswagen, that will perhaps ensure that the other manufacturers also perform better and do not go down the route of misleading people and putting out the wrong figures for their cars’ pollution levels. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) makes a very good point.

We call in our report for incentives for a low-emissions vehicle market. The Government have made considerable progress in that area. It was very encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce £390 million of extra funding for electric vehicles, including £80 million for charging points and £150 million for low-emission buses and taxis. If we look at our inner cities, where the hotspots are, there is no doubt that the issue is the buses and the taxis, but there are also a lot of delivery vans now. With the new style of life, in which many of us will order goods online, more vans and small delivery vehicles are driving right into our inner cities. In the short run we need to look at whether some of those diesel vehicles can be changed to LPG and others moved to electric. Lorries are even more of a challenge. There is no doubt that the diesel engine pulls a heavy load so much better than an electric or petrol vehicle would. Again, we have to look at that.

In October, the Government launched a consultation on measures to support electric vehicles. It included bold proposals such as a national roll-out of electric charge points and better mapping and information for consumers. It was heartening to hear the Minister of State for Transport state on Tuesday that the modern transport Bill in 2017 will “specifically address” electric charging points. This issue is cross-Departmental. I urge the Minister here today to continue to work closely with her counterparts in joint ministerial groups to give ultra-low emission vehicles the priority they deserve, to tackle air pollution and air quality. This is not only about having electric charging points; it is about making sure that people can charge quickly. If we are going to get people to use electric cars over a bigger area, they have to be able to charge those cars quickly.

I will move on to agriculture emissions—of course, transport emissions dominate press coverage, but other sectors also cause air pollution, including agriculture. Before I do, I must mention that there are also building sites where we have generators and many of the dumper trucks—all those things people use on a building site—that are all diesel; some are gas-converted, but many are not. I am sure that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) will talk about cruise ships and the need for electric to be attached to these ships so that they do not need to have their engines running while in port and here in London.

Turning to agriculture, the report recommended that farmers adopt practices that cut emissions of greenhouse gases and local air pollutants including ammonia. DEFRA needs to target support for farmers to improve manure and nutrient management and cut methane emissions through improved feeding for livestock. This is not just about the storage of manures; it is also about the spreading of them. It is about making sure that they are spread at the right time and, if someone uses artificial fertilisers, that those are put on so that they do not evaporate into the atmosphere.

One of the problems—being a practical farmer, I understand this—is that if ammonium fertiliser is applied and it does not rain, quite a lot of that fertiliser is released into the atmosphere. It is about trying to make sure that fertiliser is applied when it does actually rain. Believe it or not, even now, although the weather forecast is nearly perfect, it is not always 100% perfect—it does not always rain. Sometimes we can make sure that the fertiliser is injected into the crop. If we can get this right, not only would having less ammonia going up into the atmosphere be an advantage to the environment, but it would be a huge advantage to the farmer because he would be applying less nitrogen and making better use of it. It is the same with our fertilisers.

The New Zealanders have done quite a lot of work on making sure that grasses grown are more digestible. Believe it or not, that reduces the amount of methane gas that comes from the livestock sector. I declare an interest as a farmer—I do not want to see the end of the livestock sector in order to see less methane gas. We have to work out a smart way of using that ruminant—a wonderful animal that digests lower-grade proteins and produces a high-grade protein—to make it emit less methane gas. It is not just nitrogen dioxide, but gases such as methane and ammonia, that contribute to these air quality problems.

In conclusion, clean air should be a right, not a privilege. This matter is not going to go away and it is inconceivable, in my view and that of the Committee, that the Government should lose in the courts on this issue for a third time. The first air quality plan was illegally poor. The Government cannot make that mistake again. It is time for a comprehensive strategy to tackle this problem once and for all. We need to have some real practical measures out there that reduce the amount of nitric oxide, in particular, that is in our inner cities. I can assure Members that the EFRA Committee will continue to scrutinise the plans that are published by the Government next year. We intend, only metaphorically, to hold the Minister’s feet to the fire and to ensure that we make good very good progress in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell); and the “shadow Minister” from Caithness, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan)—I have elevated him, but he is a very good member of the Select Committee. I also thank the four other members of the Select Committee who are present today; I very much welcomed their support.

I also very much welcomed what the Minister said, because we do not want there to be a third court case that the Government lose, so that we perhaps end up being fined by the European Union for not meeting air quality targets. Nobody benefits from that—not our population, not anyone.

In our inner cities especially, there is a real problem. We will really have to work across Government together, we will have to work with local authorities, and we will have to address the situation in our inner cities. The problem is that although the number of electric vehicles is going up, they still make up only about 1% of our vehicles. In Norway, about 25% of vehicles are electric. There are lots and lots of ways to go. We talked about buses and taxis. But we must make sure that we all work together, because in the end when a man, woman or child is walking down our streets in London or across the inner cities of this country, they do not try to work out, “Is it local government, or is it the Government? Who is responsible?” All they want to have is clean air.

We can get there—I am certain we can—but we will have to put more resources in place. We will probably have to use a little more taxation in order to change people’s views on what vehicles they drive. I accept that, as the Minister said, diesel vehicles were promoted by the last Government, as well as this one; but I think we have got to start to put that into reverse—literally. I look forward to seeing the Government come forward with plans in that regard, because when they present their plans, first in April and then finally in July, we will need some real plans to tackle air quality, so that we are not back in this room, or elsewhere in this Parliament, debating this issue year in, year out, while too many people’s health continues to be affected by very poor air quality.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2015-16, Air Quality, HC 479, and the Government response, HC 665.

Tree Planting

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Chris Davies]

My hon. Friend makes two good points, which I will elaborate on as we make progress. Indeed, in the survey, two thirds of the public agree or strongly agree that:

“Planting more trees can help us cope with climate change by providing shade and reducing the effects of flooding”,

as my hon. Friend said. Four fifths agree or strongly agree that

“A lot more trees should be planted”.

I repeat that for the benefit of the Minister: four fifths of the public agree or strongly agree that a lot more trees should be planted.

Does tree planting matter to the people of the UK? The evidence I have just given strongly demonstrates that it does, and evidence does not come only from more than 20 years of opinion polling. The British public are right behind great charities that support tree planting, such as the Woodland Trust, Trees for Life and the John Muir Trust. Last week, an editorial in The Guardian—not my paper of choice, as has been pointed out to me—summed up our attitude to trees well:

“The British like to romanticise trees”,

it said, having earlier stated:

“We need greenery to feed the forests of our imaginations.”

I find it hard to disagree with those views.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Even in The Guardian.

[Chris Davies]

Even in The Guardian.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has recognised the role of trees in mitigating flooding as part of natural flood management, and the EFRA Secretary of State recently announced a £19 million fund to plant trees, because of their contribution to locking up carbon. There are therefore many reasons why we should plant trees. Most importantly, perhaps, our constituents are overwhelmingly in favour of more trees being planted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) on securing this debate. He does an excellent job chairing the all-party group on forestry.

Here we are, having this debate in Westminster Hall, and we can look around and see the timber not only in this room but in Westminster Hall itself and the oaks that were used to build that huge roof. Oaks were cut down over the years to build our fleet, when we went across the world and did various things. I will not go into the details of everything we did, but much was successful, although others may not say so. Over that period, we naturally cut down a great deal of oak forest. World wars then had their effect, and we set up the Forestry Commission after the first world war to plant a great number of trees.

Yesterday, we took evidence in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as part of our forestry inquiry. The one great plea made on grants was to bring back the one-stop shop. People are finding that when they apply for grants, they have to go through Natural England and the Rural Payments Agency and deal with DEFRA. It seems to be taking up to a couple of years to get a grant through, which is just not acceptable. Now, as we look to reform after leaving the European Union, there is much we can do with that grant scheme to make it simpler and more encouraging for landowners to plant trees.

Our Scottish friends who are here are to be congratulated, but I want to prick their bubble just a tiny bit. Some land in the UK is much more suitable than other parts for planting trees, and other land may produce 4 tonnes of wheat per acre. Some of their land in Scotland may not produce 4 tonnes of wheat per acre, so the competition for that land between crops and trees is not quite so great as elsewhere. In the north of England and Wales, there is much land that will be very good for forests, where we can create a crop—we must remember that it is a crop.

I declare an interest: I am a farmer. I do not have a big farm. If I choose to plant trees on my farm, I lock them in for one, two, three or perhaps four generations. If someone has only a small farm, they may not want to do that. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. There is a way we can manage forests: we can have large forests, perhaps on some of the marginal land. We can have deciduous trees and conifers, perhaps with strips of deciduous trees around the edges. We can make it much more accessible to the public and aesthetically beautiful and still have a crop—we must remember that timber is also a crop.

Half the time, what puts a lot of landowners off planting trees is that when they do so, a lot of the population then say, “Over our dead bodies will you cut down any of those trees.” However, trees are a living crop. They grow and mature, and then we use them for building our houses. That is all great, and it is all part of forestry, which we sometimes forget.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point about the choices that face people when they are planting. Does that not underline the importance of EU grants in decisions on planting?

[Neil Parish]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the issue is not just EU grants; it is how we deal with grants after we leave the EU. If we have the right mindset, we could produce a better grant scheme. If a percentage of better quality land further south in England where good crops can be grown is taken for trees, we will have to have a system to reward landowners for doing that. Otherwise, they will naturally decide to continue to grow other crops. Trees may be grown for aesthetic, conservation, and recreation reasons. Major forests may provide recreation, but that may also be done around our cities and highly populated areas. The great challenge for a grant system and support is to get people to plant in those areas, which is what I am keen to see.

Points have been made about climate change and the need to plant more trees to absorb carbon, as well as to stop flooding. That applies not just on marginal and steep land. In areas of run-off where intensive crops are grown, planting strips of woodland stops flooding and soil erosion. We can do an awful lot and we do not have to follow the common agricultural policy. I do not want future Governments to say, “We can’t do this.” We can do it if we look at it sensibly.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) for bringing forward this debate, which is very topical. Balcas is a big timber firm in my constituency and I should declare an interest because I have a small amount of forested land on my farm. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one way of developing our own policy in the United Kingdom is to have zoned areas of forestry? He referred to difficult land—at least, I think he hinted at difficult land in Scotland—but he did not mention difficult land in Northern Ireland. Does he accept that zoned areas of forestry might be an opportunity?

[Neil Parish]

Yes. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we would have to be careful to have the right zoned areas. I am fearful of civil servants and others drawing lines on a map. They are not always entirely in the right place. We can have zoned areas, but we must put the right system in place to encourage people in those areas to grow trees. People will be more likely to do that if the right grant system is in place, because there will not be competition for what to grow on the land, so it could happen. We need to move forward and to make sure we have a balance between broadleaved trees and conifers. There is an anti-conifer world out there and some people say we cannot have conifers. We can, and in larger forests we can make sure the mixture is right from the recreation and management point of view.

Trees can be planted to stop flooding. I went up to Yorkshire recently with the floods inquiry where, traditionally, the Forestry Commission had turned the soil up by digging trenches and planted trees on top. When there is a flood, the water runs off down the furrow and straight into streams much quicker. As we plant, we must be more careful about possible flooding. Many things can be learned and achieved. With more trees we will create a better landscape and environment, and lock in carbon. We can reduce flooding and we can manage our land better. Highly productive farms have corners in fields and other places that are difficult to cultivate and they can be planted with trees. The area I represent includes the Blackdown hills, which are full of copses and small areas of woodland that are essential in our landscape. We should see more of that.

My final point is the fact that much of our woodland is not managed environmentally or for wood production. It is important that more woodland is managed.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have some serious problems because of lack of ability to make best use of woodland? In many parts of southern England, where forestry has been managed for many decades, we have a lot of ancient woodland and a concerted effort is needed to support land managers to improve that forestry.

[Neil Parish]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. We could have a carrot and stick approach with small grants for such land. Some people buy woodland for tax advantages, so perhaps we could tweak that to require management of the land. If people buy land, should they leave it when it could be managed for environmental purposes as well as to provide a resource? We need a lot of woodchip and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made much of the fact that we import so much wood. We can grow more timber and we can burn it in wood-burning stoves in our homes because there is nothing like wood to provide a homely feeling. That cannot be beaten.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. We can grow more timber and create more forests with a better environment, but we must use our land carefully as we do that.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. We have had an excellent debate. We have all talked positively about the benefits of trees, but we need hard action. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) on his excellent opening remarks; I say that not just because he praised the Scottish Government in a way that made me fear he may be taken out the back and given a good thrashing afterwards. His wit and charm are critical to his chairmanship of the all-party group on forestry. He does an excellent job.

The hon. Gentleman started by asking arguably the most important question: why does tree planting matter so much? He then went on to describe the many ways in which it matters economically and environmentally, and the huge public support out there. The environmental impact is significant and we should be conscious of that as we make policy decisions. Four fifths of people agree that more trees should be planted; that gives the Minister a resounding mandate, well beyond the 37% of votes the Conservatives won in the general election. I suggest that 80% support should be embraced.

The hon. Gentleman was poetic. I do not know whether he was in the debate on ancient woodland, but talking about trees seems to bring out the inner poet in Members, which should be encouraged. We will all take with us the phrase, “the forgotten F-word”, which reinforces the point about forestry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mike Weir) and Chief Whip made an excellent contribution and set out the historical context, which is particularly important when we talk about forestry. As we heard, that is a long-term investment, so learning from past mistakes is critical. He also brought up one of the most significant issues that we need to focus on in the debate: the importance of EU funding and SRDP funding in Scotland. He joined the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire in supporting the moves made by the Scottish Government.

The MP for just across the border, as I call her—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan)—spoke about her husband. We all have challenges doing this job and have to score brownie points whenever we can with our spouses. The hon. Lady has earned many a token today. I commend her for not jumping to her feet when she heard the question “Should we leave the EU?”, although I did see some hairs rise on the back of her neck at that point. She made an important point about flooding and also said that we should set more ambitious targets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) made an excellent and puntastic contribution. He used this excellent line: “When we grow trees, we grow careers.” That is a lovely way of putting it. Trees are long-term investments and their progress is slow to witness—a bit like many Government policies—so we sometimes do not notice that progress. What my hon. Friend said was a lovely way of reinforcing the point. Like a couple of hon. Members, he also mentioned BSW Timber, which is headquartered in Earlston in my constituency. It is always a delight to hear that excellent company mentioned. Clearly, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, as in mine, forestry is hugely important.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made excellent points. He was obviously fresh from evidence sessions lined up because of this upcoming debate—that is the advantage of chairing a Select Committee. The point about a one-stop shop for grants is important. If we want to move on this issue, it is important that it should not take two years to get a grant through; otherwise, people will simply be put off by the process.

The hon. Gentleman also flushed out the interesting and important point about the competitive aspect of land use choices. Trees are a crop. The challenge, of course, is public attachment to them. We need to maintain the premise that they are a crop. Yes, they have wider benefits, but they remain a crop. That needs to be considered in relation to planning and harvesting. We need to ensure that people are not put off because of what I have described. The hon. Gentleman also made excellent points about the need for balance. This is not just about large-scale forestry; forestry, in many aspects, has a use in terms of both local land use and the wider benefits.

As I mentioned, forestry is very important in my constituency. BSW Timber is headquartered there, but there are many other forestry businesses. They may be involved in production. An example is Cheviot Trees, a state-of-the-art nursery in the Scottish borders and across in Northumberland. There are also many businesses that rely on forestry, such as the small business that I visited recently on the Buccleuch estate that makes timber homes. It is two guys working away on the estate and producing the most magnificent dwellings, which are now in huge demand.

The forestry industry contributes almost £1 billion a year to the Scottish economy and supports more than 25,000 jobs. It is clearly critical to Scotland’s economic success today and in the future. As we heard, forestry is a devolved matter, but it is heavily influenced by EU policies and regulation and, more importantly, by funding. In Scotland, that is through the Scottish rural development programme.

As we heard, forestry is a long-term business. Stability and confidence are required to enable investment decisions to be taken. Our domestic market is highly vulnerable to changes in currency and trade policy. The sector needs clarity on the regulatory frameworks, but also, critically, on funding models. Although the Government stepped in initially to honour funding models until 2020, we need to get on the front foot in terms of what will flow on afterwards.

Economically, forestry is a very sound and worthwhile investment, but the other aspect, which means that the debate should have been attended by everybody, not just a few of us with an interest in forestry, is that the environmental impact is also huge. Forestry is playing a key role in helping Scotland to meet its ambitious climate change targets. I will give some notes to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire—he was very good on Scotland; there was just a slight gap there. [Laughter.]

[Neil Parish]

We’ll transfer him—don’t worry.

[Calum Kerr]

A free transfer!

Forestry will deliver on the annual carbon saving target. That was set at 0.6 million tonnes of carbon by 2010, which is rising to 1 million tonnes by 2020. Forestry is a huge part of the strategy in that area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, the Forestry Commission recently published a climate change action plan, looking at how we can build on the current success. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made the fair point at the start that although Scotland may be leading the way in the UK, there is still room for improvement. There is acceptance of the Select Committee Chair’s point about the most effective use of land. There are areas that we can and will develop further.

We heard about the annual planting targets of 10,000 hectares, but as important are the moves to speed up and streamline the approval processes for sustainable plantations. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire outlined, that needs to happen in England; the Scottish Government are already on the front foot in that respect.

I mentioned Cheviot Trees. When this debate was announced, its managing director, Harry Frew, got in touch with me and asked me to attend this important debate if I could because, in his words:

“We don’t feel the urgency of tree planting is seriously understood nor is activity being implemented in a meaningful way in England.”

Mr Frew is clear that the Government get it—they have the nice words and some of the rhetoric—but what is missing is action. I hope that in this debate he will get reassurance from the Minister that there is action to match those words.

I have a genuine concern as we head down the Brexit path about the ability and resources in DEFRA to deliver in a post-Brexit world. My own experience of getting responses out of DEFRA, as the DEFRA spokesperson, has been poor. Responses are slow. I got a response today to a question submitted on 1 September, and two responses are still outstanding. In a resource-constrained environment, in which people are struggling to do the day job, how will the Department cope with the bigger challenge for DEFRA—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) on securing this debate. As has been said, there have been a number of contributions and interventions showing how important a role trees play in the heart of our nation, holistically as well as economically and environmentally.

My hon. Friend will recognise that forestry policy is a devolved matter, but I undertake to give an overall picture of tree planting in the UK while focusing on measures for which this Government are responsible. The debate offers me a chance to highlight our commitment to plant 11 million trees this Parliament, the role of forestry in the economy and the potential for woodland expansion to help us meet our carbon goals and our reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We are actively working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on our national emissions reduction plan.

Hon. Members have highlighted many benefits of tree planting, such as flood alleviation and the potential for building homes. The phrase “The right tree in the right place” has been used, and certainly the right tree can be the solution to many of the challenges we face. Considerations include whether it is the right use of land, where to plant and whether trees are broadleaf or softwood. Those are challenging policy objectives to balance, but when the Government bring forward our 25-year environment plan next year, I hope hon. Members will have a good idea of what we intend to do in the long term.

Total tree planting in England, both new planting and restocking, was 4,000 hectares in the year to March 2016. In Scotland it was 12,500 hectares, and it was 1,900 hectares in Wales and 800 hectares in Northern Ireland. Traditionally, planting is measured in hectares rather than individual saplings, with different planting densities for different kinds of trees. In the case of new creation, Scotland’s ambitions have already been highlighted—10,000 hectares a year are planned. In the last year, it achieved 4,600 hectares. I understand that in Wales there is an ambition to plant 2,000 hectares a year, and 100 hectares was achieved. One hundred hectares was achieved in Northern Ireland as well, and as has been pointed out, in England it was about 700 hectares.

[Neil Parish]

I do not blame the Minister for one moment for the problems with the grants system at the moment, but I hope she will cover the idea of trying to bring back a one-stop shop to speed up grant applications. I think that would be really good, and I would like her to consider it.

[Dr Coffey]

I hope to cover that very soon, and I hope that my answer will satisfy my hon. Friend. One reason why there has been a dip compared with prior years is that a new scheme has come in, focused on European rules. It is usual that in the first year of such a scheme, take-up tends to be lower. I know that, certainly in England, we are already seeing some significant increases. Woodland cover in England is at its highest level since the 14th century and our aspiration is to grow it even further to about 12% coverage by 2060—as has been pointed out, it is currently at 10%.

UK Fishing Industry

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who made a good and passionate plea on behalf of fishing and fishermen in this country. I will begin by talking about the present situation and then expand a little on the direction of the fishing industry after we leave the EU. The Minister has the unenviable job in the very near future of spending probably nearly all night in Brussels as our fishing levels are thrashed out.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Only one?

[Neil Parish]

Several I expect. I think that the right hon. Gentleman partook in such meetings when he was fisheries Minister.

The current Minister will have the unenviable task of sitting down with Ministers from across the whole of Europe to thrash out in great detail how much and where we can fish cod, sole, hake and so on. Our fishermen throughout the whole country, and especially those in the west country, will expect a very good deal from him because he is such a magnificent Minister. We expect him to come back with more fish in his pockets and in his suitcase, and to ensure that we have those opportunities. We have to remember that we will still be fishing under the common fisheries policy for another two to three years. For our fishermen, with their quotas and all the things that they need to do, we need to sustain the fishing industry in the years ahead.

Many crews on our fishing boats are central and eastern Europeans. Their labour is needed, so we need to ensure that everything is in place.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman mentions eastern Europeans, and this is a sore point for Hebrides fishermen at the moment because we cannot get the numbers of them in and boats are left tied up. There is a boat for sale in Scalpay because it has lacked a crew since August. We are dying to get people in from the Philippines, but blockages put in place by the London Government are choking the Scottish fishing industry.

[Neil Parish]

It is perhaps not quite the British Government who are “choking” the industry, as the hon. Gentleman says. I do accept, however, that there is a perception among those coming to work from central and eastern Europe about whether they are welcome here, and therefore whether they want to come. The value of the pound has also made working here not quite as lucrative, so there has been a knock-on effect.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

This issue has an impact on fishermen and the fishing industry in the west of Scotland and in County Down, where we have three fishing ports. We rely, by and large, on the efforts of non-EEA fishermen. We have found that the blockages are coming from the Home Office. We urgently need statutory regulation to address this issue, otherwise our fishing industry will die.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady puts her powerful point on the record. We cannot necessarily hold the fisheries Minister responsible for everything that the Home Office does, but the hon. Lady makes the very good point that we need support and labour not only from inside the EU, but from outside it, so that we can man our fishing boats.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

To reiterate the hon. Lady’s point, the Scottish and Northern Ireland fishing industry is in crisis. Will the hon. Gentleman use his position to help us to speak to the Home Office and build a case for allowing non-EEA fishermen to work in the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland fishing industry? We face a crisis and we need all the help we can get.

[Neil Parish]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, although there is a limit to my influence and power. That said, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will be carrying out an inquiry on fishing, which is probably more urgent now. Part of that inquiry will involve looking at and taking evidence about all these things—support, labour and how we run our fishing industry. I can give him a commitment about that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Neil Parish]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman for Northern Ireland; I am not sure of his constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

It is Strangford. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that—I thought that everyone in the House knew of Strangford. It must have slipped his mind.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), two SNP Members—I am sorry, but I cannot remember their constituencies—and I met the previous Minister to make a definitive case for the retention of the Filipino fishermen to ensure that the boats in Scotland and Northern Ireland could survive, but it was not agreed to. Responsibility therefore lies not with Europe but—I say this with the greatest of respect—with the Immigration Minister. There is a scheme for seasonal—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a speech later, if he leaves enough time after his intervention.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I knew his name, but not his constituency—for his point, which I am sure that the Minister has registered. We are hearing the strong view that this is about not just how and where we fish and what we catch, but the labour to man our fishing boats. The situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland shows how integrated and inter-reliant our fishing industry is.

As we move into this new world, securing access to other waters will be a great challenge, but we will probably also have to share our waters with those who have historically had rights here. Perhaps we can use that fact in our trade negotiations as we move towards a new policy. The adage is that when we entered the EU in 1972, we gave correct figures on the size of our catch, but others inflated theirs, meaning that when the catches were cut back, Britain ended up with very low quotas. From Grimsby to Scotland and all around the country, we can start to put that right.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the fishing industry could be used as part of trade negotiations. The Scottish fishing industry learned a sore lesson when it was previously sold out in negotiations. We need assurances that that will not happen again, and that the industry will not be a pawn in trade negotiations.

[Neil Parish]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must make clear our ability to take our fishing rights out to the 200-mile limit, as well as where exactly we will have those rights and how we will deal with others’ historical rights. If we can get the whip hand—if we can secure 200-mile rights—we can get a very good trade deal, as well as a very good deal for Scottish fishermen. It will be interesting to see how we unravel what has been in place for 40 years. I know that the Minister is confident of getting these rights back to 200 miles. It will take some doing, but if we can achieve it, we will be in a very good position.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman talked earlier about the prospect of the fisheries Minister facing long nights in Brussels, but it strikes me that we have to negotiate with the EU and other nations. We already have talks with Norway about fishing quotas. The process will be extremely complicated, so how confident is he that post-exit trade talks will produce a better deal than that which we get from the CFP?

[Neil Parish]

I think that the hon. Gentleman was asking that question of the Minister rather than me. We look forward to hearing from the Minister how he believes this will work. It can work, however, and if we secure these rights, it can work extremely well.

As we move forward with fisheries policy, we will have to put in place conservation measures. It must not be open season to fish everywhere all the time. Norway can close a zone within 24 hours if it is being overfished. It can react much more quickly than other nations because it is one country reacting for one area, so there are some positive aspects even with conservation.

If I may, I will throw a few ripples into the pond, as I am not averse to doing. In the future, might we move from a system of quotas to one of fishing effort and days at sea? How will we control fishing in the future? We do not want discards—a lot of work has already been done about that, but there is still more to do. We want to land all the fish that we catch and to promote different species of fish in the country so that we eat much more of what we catch. One problem now is that 70% to 80% of what is landed on Newlyn harbour in Cornwall goes straight to France or Spain because we do not eat those types of fish.

There is a lot of positive work that can be done. I want the Minister to carry on fighting in Brussels to secure a good deal for our fishermen that will see us through the next few years. Then, yes, let us get these rights back, but as we get them back, let us manage our own fishing sensibly. If we let others into our waters, let us get something back under reciprocal arrangements. That is the way we can build this key industry back up. In Ireland, where there are open borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic, these things will have to be dealt with even for fishing. I will die in a ditch over the need to keep open the border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, not only on land but on sea, because there is no doubt that that is the future for Ireland. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak and thank Members for their interventions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]