Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Sewage treatment plants are all too often overwhelmed at times of heavy rain. As well as installing stormwater tanks, such as the new 4 million litre stormwater tank in Scarborough, does the Minister agree that we should do more to encourage homeowners to harvest grey water, which can buffer the effects of heavy rain, and use that for such things as flushing the toilet?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for broadening the scope of the debate. We are in discussions with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—many of these issues involve working with other Departments—on grey water harvesting and better using the rain that does fall. A farmer in Devon whom I visited was collecting all the water from his farm buildings roofs to supply his animals.

Agricultural Tenancies

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to Baroness Rock and her working group. She has engaged with me and with my Committee, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which launched its report on the tenanted sector this morning.

Does the Minister agree that as we move from direct payments to more environmentally linked payments, there will always be a limitation on which schemes tenants can participate in because of their long-term nature? Does he also share my concern about the possibility of perverse incentives for landlords to take land back from tenants for purposes such as the creation of solar farms, rewilding and forestry?

[Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his Committee for their work. We want to avoid any such perverse incentives. We do not want to motivate landlords to take land from tenants for the purpose of, for instance, rewilding, or to remove them from the sector for any reason. We want to encourage a positive working relationship.

There are, of course, some challenges. If, for example, a tenant applies for a grant under our new slurry scheme to introduce physical structures that will last well beyond the length of the tenancy, the landlord will need to have some engagement in the process and to support that tenant. We want to open up these grants to tenants as well as owner-occupiers, so that tenant farmers can invest in their productivity as well as their sustainability and their ability to make a profit.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

That is exactly what this debate is about: MPs who care about the places they represent standing up for what is right, instead of making excuses for 13 failed years in government. That is exactly why Members are sent to this House, and others could take note.

What we have seen is that there is no respect for our country, there is no respect for our values, there is no respect for our history and there is no respect for our future. What is more, there is no respect for the working people who make this country what it is.

What was the Secretary of State’s response when this issue was first raised? First, she told Parliament that meeting water companies was not her priority, passing the buck to her junior Minister; then she broke the Government’s own legal deadline for publishing water quality targets; and then she announced, repeatedly, that she would kick the can down the road on cleaning up our waterways. Since then, we have had three panic-stricken announcements of the Secretary of State’s so-called plan, each one nothing new but a copy and paste of what went before. We know the Tories do not have a plan. At best, they have a recycled press release. That is the difference. I give way to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I do not think anyone would argue that we do not need to invest more in better water quality. More parts of the country need to see schemes such as the new water treatment works in Scarborough and the 4 million litre storm water tank, also in Scarborough. What we need to debate is timescale and affordability. Does the hon. Member think that it is slightly ironic that, when even the most modest prediction is that his proposals would put £1,000 on the average water bill, the second debate this afternoon is on the cost of living increases?

[Jim McMahon]

Honestly, I am staggered. I say that with respect to the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Our figures are based on the Government’s figures, and I am happy to put them in the House of Commons Library. DEFRA’s own figures put a cost on Labour’s plan and, let me tell him, the lowest estimate is 10% of what has been taken out in dividends. Those are not our figures; they are the Government’s own figures. If the Environment Secretary has not read her own assessment of ending the Tory sewage scandal, it will be in the Library at the end of the debate; Members can read it for themselves. This is her day job, right? She is meant to understand the data her Department produces and form a plan behind that. I am sorry that my expectations were obviously too high. [Interruption.] Members will enjoy the next bit.

Let us not forget the Environment Secretary’s first spell in DEFRA. In her three years as water Minister, she slashed the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget. Its ability to tackle pollution at source was cut by a third, resources to hold water companies to account were snatched away and there was literally the opening of the floodgates that allowed sewage dumping to take place. What have been the consequences? There has been a doubling of sewage discharges: a total of 321 years’ worth of sewage dumping, all on her watch and straight to her door. She said that getting a grip of the sewage scandal was not a priority, but something for other people to sort out. What she really meant was that it was not politically advisable, because her own record spoke for itself. I have a simple question: how can she defend the interests of the country when so implicated in destroying it? The public are not stupid. They see this issue for exactly what it is: the Tory sewage scandal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

Understandably, the Environment Act principally addresses England. It is important that we respect devolution to the Welsh Government, who have it in their power to act and who do different things. I do not think they shy away from the fact that this is a difficult challenge. I commend them on the many beautiful beaches in Wales, which I have visited many times, including in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). However, this is not straightforward and there is no overnight fix. Credible plans are needed, so this Government are right to be making progress.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), does the Secretary of State agree that Welsh Water is a not-for-profit organisation, so the shadow Secretary of State’s argument that dividends should be used to pay for improvements does not wash in Wales?

[Dr Coffey]

Well said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I was appalled to read in this week’s Farmers Weekly that food labelled as British has actually come from South America or even Africa, and that meat not fit for human consumption has been going into the food chain. The Food Standards Agency’s report makes it clear that it has been misled and hoodwinked by these operators. Is there a case to bring the FSA within DEFRA rather than the Department of Health and Social Care, where it is now?

[Dr Coffey]

The Select Committee Chair is right that the Farmers Weekly has provided an interesting investigation.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

Of course. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was an excellent Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She had the same ambitions as this Bill is delivering.

Amendments 7 to 13 and 15 will increase the scrutiny of the secondary legislation set out by the Bill. In response to the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, amendments 7 to 9, 12 and 13 change the parliamentary procedure from negative to affirmative for clauses 4(3), 6(2) and 18(1). Amendments 7 and 13 ensure that clauses 4(1)(b) and 18(6) remain subject to the affirmative procedure. We considered these recommendations closely and accepted the Committee’s view that the clauses contain matters of significant public interest. Regulations under these clauses will therefore need to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament via affirmative resolution before they come into effect.

Amendments 10, 11 and 15 increase parliamentary scrutiny of clauses 11(5) and 22(3) while retaining the flexibility for the Secretary of State to designate the most appropriate body for the role of the animal welfare advisory body. We recognise it is essential that the animal welfare protections under this Bill command strong public and stakeholder confidence, which is why we tabled these amendments.

Alongside these amendments, which provide an opportunity for both Houses to debate and agree the provisions before they come into effect, we commissioned Scotland’s Rural College to run an independent research project to help us develop criteria for the animal welfare assessment and the accompanying evidence that will be required.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

We have traditionally used other methods of crop breeding, such as induced mutation using gamma radiation or chemicals such as colchicine. Can the Minister reassure me that, although we are making changes for this keyhole surgery type of genetic modification, or gene editing, it will not affect traditional methods that have been used for many years to produce varieties such as Golden Promise winter barley?

[Mark Spencer]

This technology should accompany and enhance the possibilities of plant breeding and, later, animal breeding. I think it is an exciting opportunity, and who knows where the science will take us? It may well lead to world-changing developments that help to feed the growing world population.

The research by Scotland’s Rural College will involve experts from the Animal Welfare Committee and a wide range of organisations with expertise in animal welfare, genetics and industry practice. Following the Bill’s passage, we will continue to work with experts and other stakeholders to develop measures to safeguard animal welfare before we bring the measures on animals into force.

Finally, I will speak to the minor and technical amendments. Amendment 5 is a technical amendment that ensures clause 1(8) reflects the definition of “artificially modified” inserted into part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002, which is expressed in relation to genes or other genetic material rather than organisms. The amendment will make no substantive change to the Bill.

Amendment 14 replaces the reference to a “relevant obligation” in clause 21(3)(a) with a reference to a “part 2 obligation”, as defined in clause 21, for clarity.

Amendment 16 similarly replaces the reference to a “relevant obligation” in clause 29(4)(a) with a reference to a “part 3 obligation”, as defined in clause 29, for clarity.

Amendment 17 aims to make it clear in the clause on interpretation that references to the term “notifier”, which is defined in clause 6(1), may in certain circumstances be modified by regulations under clause 11(9).

I hope the House is confident in accepting these amendments.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who is, by my accounting, the fourth Minister at the Dispatch Box on this Bill. We had two in two days during the Committee stage, but I am still here, as is his colleague on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I thank her for the inclusive way in which she introduced the Bill at the beginning. It is a complicated Bill and she gave us access to officials, which was very helpful.

I take this opportunity, in case the Minister missed it, to remind him of the mantra that has guided the Opposition’s view on the Bill. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that to secure both public and investor confidence, a strong and robust regulatory framework is required. Disappointingly, that is the part the Government have failed to provide.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman represents a city that is full of science, particularly in its universities, so does he agree that we can bring forward this legislation only because we have left the European Union and that new wheat varieties that are 50% lower in acrylamide, a chemical that can induce cancer, is good news for both farmers and consumers of wheat?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that. We have had this discussion before and I have to disappoint him slightly, in the sense that of course the EU is moving as well on this. I suspect we will probably end up in a similar place at a similar time. However, he is absolutely right to point out the potential advantages.

The amendments before us are all Government amendments, because, despite the excellent learned and erudite arguments put by my colleagues in the other place—I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman, Baroness Jones and Lords Winston, Krebs, Trees and Cameron, among others—not much has changed, and that is genuinely disappointing. However, some improvements have been made. A number of the amendments move regulations to the affirmative procedure, as the Minister explained, and that allows some, if limited, further scrutiny, which is welcome. Amendment 1 to clause 1 is the Government’s further attempt to codify a particular knotty problem that we discussed at length in Committee. So the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing their amendments tonight. We will merely pointing be out how much more improved the Bill could have been had they had the confidence to embrace our positive suggestions.

I say that not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had the chance to peruse the Sunday newspapers, as I hope you had the time to do and enjoy, you would have seen comment on today’s gathering of international experts on human gene editing. Although the techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 may be similar, this is of course a different issue from those under consideration today. However, I would argue that many of the ethical issues around animals are not dissimilar. That is why the Government’s refusal to adopt our suggestion of an overseeing authority to look at these very complicated and challenging issues is so disappointing. We have a great chance to be genuinely world-leading in this area. We have brilliant people such as those at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, yet the Government are, apparently, not interested. That is a wasted opportunity.

Let us look at these amendments in more detail. As I have said, on a number of issues the Government have bowed to informed argument in the other place and agreed that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure: on the release or marketing of genetically edited organisms; on information that must be included in the register; on the animal welfare declaration that has to be made; and on the body to be designated as the animal welfare advisory body. That is all welcome. But one of the most powerful and consistent criticisms has been the vagueness of the Bill on many issues and the lack of detail, particularly relating to the proposals regarding animals and when regulations might take effect. I am afraid that these amendments do not seem to help us on this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on it. The promise at the outset was that nothing would be done on animals until the science was further advanced; it has been described as a “step-by-step approach”. Will the Minister reconfirm that commitment today and tell us what timeframe is actually envisaged? As for companion animals or primates, can he give any reassurances on that today? Many people will be keen to hear what he has to say on it.

As I have already indicated, the most significant amendment is to clause 1, as the Government seek once again to explain what they consider to be a natural process. We had an interesting and extensive discussion in Committee on this point, both with those giving evidence and between members, and it was discussed at length in the other place. I fear that the Government have struggled with this, and I am not sure the new wording takes us much further forward. In general, the Government have sought to define a new category, “precision breeding” which many expert witnesses doubt has much meaning. The particular concern is whether the definitions accurately describe gene editing, without allowing gene modification in through the back door, with one of the key issues being whether exogenous material is included.

The amendment before us introduces yet another term—modern biotechnology. This is also ill-defined, and, as argued by Lord Krebs in the other place, may not stand the test of time, or, more importantly, as we heard in expert evidence, legal scrutiny and challenge. I appreciate that this is difficult territory and hard to define, and almost any sentence fails to capture the complexity, but we were promised at the outset that GM is excluded, and it would be helpful to have the Minister confirm that clearly again today.

l am conscious that you do not want lengthy speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me conclude. The learned and lengthy discussions in the other place showed just how complicated this subject is. Sadly, the Government have made only limited changes in the light of those discussions. Those changes are welcome, so we will not oppose them, but we think that this is a missed opportunity to set out the strong regulatory framework that would have reassured the public, and given investors the confidence that the sector needs.

There is significant opportunity for good here, but there are also risks—risks we may not fully understand. It is also worth bearing in mind that one mistake could tarnish the entire technology. As so often, the Government have gone for the short-term quick fix—the sticking plaster. How much better it would have been to have set up the robust long-term framework that could have established the UK as the setter of the standard that others will follow. That is unfinished business, and it is for another day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

Not at all. This is an England-only Bill; it is there in black and white. I was expressing my disappointment on behalf of Scottish farmers who will not be able to use this technology. That will leave them at a disadvantage commercially, and I hope that she will listen to those Scottish farmers.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Perhaps the Minister might be reassured by the fact that the Scottish National party seems to be against the Bill on political rather than scientific grounds. In fact, I think it is on the record as saying that if the European Union adopts the legislation—as the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), said—it would immediately adopt it. Surely the SNP is taking the lead from Europe, not from the people who elected them.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It was my intention to slowly glide the Bill through its process, but we seem to have stepped into a bit of a hot potato. The Bill is a fantastic opportunity for scientists around the UK, particularly in England, to embrace this new technology.

Open Season for Woodcock

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for introducing the debate in such a balanced way. I am probably to blame for one of the reasons why we are here. Some years ago, I mentioned the petitions system in Estonia to David Cameron; if a certain proportion of the population signed a petition, it would be debated in Parliament. I am pleased that the suggestion to David Cameron, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, has resulted in these sorts of petitions coming forward.

I put on record the fact that I am a trustee of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, which is ably chaired by our former colleague, Sir Jim Paice. The trust carries out much-needed research in these areas to ensure that, when decisions are made by politicians and land managers, they are based on sound scientific research. Indeed, it publishes the results of its research, whether or not it benefits its objectives.

There is a lot of talk about the changes to the way in which we manage our countryside, with the environmental land management scheme, rewilding, tree planting and general conservation being front and centre of Government policy. Of course, where shooting takes place, that has been happening for generations and that has had positive knock-on effects for ecology. Two-thirds of my constituency is covered by moorland, where it is not only the grouse that thrives, but the lapwing, the curlew and the golden plover. That is because of the management of that grouse moorland, including the burning and the predator control, which means not only that the game species can thrive, but the other species that need that environment thrive too. Many of those arguments apply to the woodcock. There is a situation unfolding in my patch: one of the landowners wants to plant some woodland but, because the adjacent moorland is not shot or game-keepered, Natural England is worried that the predators in that woodland, such as foxes, will go on to the moor and deplete some of the important ground-nesting species that we all want to see.

We have heard that there are two populations of the woodcock: resident and migratory. There has been some talk about the red list. The woodcock is on the international red list as a species of least concern with a stable population trend, in the same category as the blackbird, although the resident population is under much more pressure.  Around 1.4 million migrants arrive each year, on a mean date of 10 November, and they leave in March. The resident population is much smaller; there are about 55,000 males in the spring—by the way, we count the males because they display in the spring, so they are easier to spot than the females—which results in a population of about 180,000 in the autumn.

The native woodcock was rare or absent in the UK until the mid-19th century. It nests in woodlands, and those habitats were previously not there. It was because of lowland tree planting, some of which was meant to encourage game, that the birds started to build here. In the 20th century, the planting of very large areas of conifers by the Forestry Commission and others resulted in the population increasing.

Now that population is declining, and a number of factors are behind that. First, we cannot avoid the effect of global warming on the species. The western limit of the woodcock which is here in the UK is moving to the north and east. In fact, in Devon and Cornwall, the woodcock is very rare. Unfortunately, global warming is having an effect. Secondly, those conifer plantations which, when planted, were superb environments for the woodcock, are now maturing, and there is very little opportunity for them to breed there. Thirdly, we have woodland degradation by deer, which is not conducive to woodcock breeding. We also have predation from raptors and other predators, with some birds of prey in particular—I saw 14 buzzards in the sky in one place last summer. It is great news that we are getting more birds of prey, but they do predate on some of these ground-nesting species.

Our shooting season is between 1 October and 31 January in England and Wales. As suggested by many of the shooting organisations, there is a voluntary delay until November, with which there are very high levels of compliance. We have heard some figures bandied about, but figures from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation show that there is 97%-plus compliance. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North that the figures on the numbers of birds shot that have been bandied about are based on 2012 shooting figures, which were published in 2014. I think it is important to wait until we see the 2022 figures, which will be published this year.

The proposal in the petition will have little effect on the resident population, as only around 2% of birds that are shot are not migratory. Sustainable levels of shooting and the voluntary delay of shooting are the way forward, at least until we have more data. Instead, to encourage more woodcock, we can continue active habitat management —part of the changes in the way we support farmers will help that—and, in particular, look at more open woodland. Secondly, we need better predator control: foxes, mustelids, such as stoats, and feral cats are predating on our native species. We would also like to see more game being eaten, in particular venison, as some of the habitat degradation is the effect of unprecedently high numbers of deer in our country. I have not eaten woodcock myself, but it has a high reputation. The more shooting farms and estates we have, the more land managers will be engaged in the conservation work we need to rebuild our native woodcock population.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I will not take too much time, because repetition—as I was reminded when Timmy Mallett joined me at a charity event in my constituency yesterday—can bring that famous foam hammer down on one’s head.

The point I really want to make—which builds on the arguments made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—is to ask: why? Why do we need to legislate for something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire has just said, is not actually a problem?

The shooting community shoots up and down the land. I fully accept that there are one or two irresponsible shoots, which we need to clamp down—the sort of shoots that bury the birds afterwards, rather than putting them into the food chain. However, the vast majority of shoots are entirely responsible and entirely focused on, yes, shooting the birds and getting them into the food chain, and more than anything else they are focused on conservation: looking after our countryside and ensuring that these habitats are there, not just for woodcock but for every species we could care to imagine.

That is clear from the statistics already quoted this afternoon. As it is, and with a very high rate of compliance, shoots up and down the country are not shooting woodcock until after 1 December. With an ever-expanding statute book in the United Kingdom, I put it to hon. and right hon. Members that there is no good reason to add to it yet further. Shooting in the United Kingdom, as has already been said, provides a massive net benefit to our economy and many thousands of jobs. As is clearly evidenced by the Aim to Sustain coalition, which involves the BASC, the Countryside Alliance, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and many more, the shooting community is involved in a voluntary transition from lead to steel shot. Indeed, many game dealers will not take meat from shoots that do not have British Game Assurance accreditation, which requires that birds by shot with steel, not lead.

This voluntary transition is leading to much sounder and more sustainable shooting in the United Kingdom. The longer that transition is left as voluntary—I stress the word “voluntary”—then the future benefits of shooting will be all the greater, not just to the economy but to getting more game meat into the food chain. I should say in passing that it is sometimes overlooked and forgotten that game meat is often healthier and a better protein than many of the meats we all buy from supermarket shelves. More people should be encouraged to eat game; I am encouraged by BGA’s success in getting more game meat served on national health service hospital wards, providing healthy protein.

We must ask ourselves this question: what good would it do to put another piece of legislation on the statute book? What would it achieve? Would it change anything on the ground? The answer can only be no. As others have said, between 1.4 million and 1.6 million woodcock migrate to the United Kingdom annually. The International Union for Conservation of Nature red list clearly lists the woodcock as a species of least concern, with a stable global population trend. This is not a bird that is about to die out or on the precipice of extinction; shoots and famers up and down the land look after the habitats that sustain all these species which we care so much about.

While the petition looks at specific dates around the shooting season, there is no question but that there are those out there who want to stop shooting altogether. They want to stop the British public shooting game and, more importantly, eating that healthy, nutritious source of food. But there is a reality that underpins that mission, and it is fantasy-land politics to believe that, if it were successful and we no longer shot and ate game, that would suddenly lead to a massive growth in the woodcock population or any other species—that somehow deer will neatly pat down the soil around newly planted saplings, or that predatory birds would bring down tasty worms and gift them to the woodcock.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds understands the importance of predator control? In 2018, it controlled 598 foxes and 800 crows, and it also controls barnacle geese and Canada geese to protect terns and avocets, so it understands the importance of managing the countryside in the way that gamekeepers have done for generations.

Environmental Improvement Plan 2023

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Goal 5 of the plan aims at eliminating waste, and while we have made great progress—for example, in phasing out single-use plastics and substituting more sustainable materials for plastic in packaging for foods—the sad fact remains that our local authorities are very good at collecting waste, but the majority of our plastic waste is exported overseas.

Will the Secretary of State look at two things she could do to improve that situation? First, will she look at the operation of extended producer responsibility, and maybe look at what is being done in Belgium to make sure there is work with industry to incentivise investment in our plastic waste recycling here? Secondly, will she look at setting a date, as my Committee has suggested, for the phasing out and elimination of plastic waste exports to countries such as Turkey, where standards are not as good as ours?

[Dr Coffey]

On exports of plastics, we have recognised this issue and want to make sure that we are not exporting to non-OECD countries, but that does not mean that we give a blank cheque when there are exports to member countries of the OECD. That is why we have a rigorous process in place, but we will continue to investigate, through the Environment Agency, where issues arise and get them fixed.

On our thinking more broadly, one of our sadnesses during covid was of course the explosion in single-use plastics and the throwaway elements that were necessary for public health. We also had a reduction in our recycling rates. We do want to turn that around, and that is why we will continue to work on the important EPR reforms to which my right hon. Friend referred.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

As a farmer myself, I thank the Minister, following the taster that we had at the Oxford farming conference, for his further clarification of the way that agricultural transition will be delivered. We are now able to capitalise fully on the freedoms we have outside the European Union to tailor our agricultural policy not only to the needs and objectives of farmers, but to the objectives of taxpayers.

English agriculture is very diverse in land type, topography, altitude and size, with many smaller farms relying on the support they get from the taxpayer. Can the Minister reassure me that this support system will not only help those farmers who need to change the way they farm to make it more sustainable and ecologically diverse, but support those upland farmers in places such as the North Yorkshire moors who have been delivering for generations exactly the public good that we want them to deliver?

[Mark Spencer]

I join my right hon. Friend in declaring my interest, and I pay tribute to him for his work as Chair of the Select Committee and the scrutiny that he brings to this area of government. He is right to highlight the uplands. In these schemes, we have something for everyone. Whether someone is a small livestock farmer in the uplands or a huge arable farmer in the lowlands, there is something that they can engage with to improve their business and improve the biodiversity and environmental output of their farm. Of course, some of the SFI criteria we have put in place—particularly those regarding improved grassland and low-input grassland—are aimed specifically at sheep farmers to ensure that there is something they can participate in. I do not underestimate the economic value of the food they produce, or the impact they have on the tourism industry and on the mental health of people visiting that part of Yorkshire to unwind and enjoy the great landscapes that those farmers have created.

Crustacean Mortality in North-east England: Independent Expert Assessment

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The Labour party is perfectly entitled to its own opinions, but it is not entitled to its own facts, particularly scientific facts. Will the Minister thank the expert panel, who have pretty much ruled out dredging, and particularly capital dredging, which had not taken place for nine months before the mortality event occurred? Will he assure me that CEFAS will be the first agency to be mobilised should we see recurrences and that, if it can find crabs—perhaps there are some in the freezer from when it happened—more can be done to try to identify the pathogen, which obviously needs to be tracked down?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend not only for his question but for the work that his Select Committee has done in trying to get to the bottom of the matter and establish the facts. CEFAS remains on guard and, should the worst happen and there is another event, it will step in. As he identified, there are crabs in freezers in the north-east that are available to be tested. However, we must be clear that it is entirely possible that we still will not be able to identify what that pathogen was or if it existed.

Snares

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

First, it is important to say that no civilised person will view the taking of any animal’s life lightly, or do anything other than limit or mitigate any suffering involved. Animals are not just chess pieces to be knocked off the board. As a farmer and a countryman, I understand the need for humane tools for the control of predators. We have no livestock on my farm at the moment, and I am not a game shooter, but I understand the importance of having a balance.

We no longer have the predators, such as lynx and wolves, that will take out foxes—in the main, we are talking about foxes—although the EFRA Committee, which I chair, is starting a report on the reintroduction of species, and we may touch on those species. It is important that we have effective predator control, not only for agriculture but for wildlife.

This is not just about game shooting and the interests of gamekeepers. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, sheep farmers often have problems with foxes as lambs are born; while the ewe is having her second lamb, the fox can come and take the first lamb before it has had a chance to get to its feet. We have more and more outdoor pigs, and we should be encouraging that more environmentally friendly and humane method of rearing pigs, but, sadly, those piglets are subject to predation. With poultry, although most farmers manage to shut their hens up at night, which is when foxes generally operate, we have seen situations where foxes that have been trapped in urban areas are released into the countryside. Sadly, those urban foxes do not understand that they are nocturnal, and they have no fear of humans. We have often had problems in rural areas where urban foxes have been hunting in the daylight; that has been an additional problem for poultry keepers.

It is important that we can protect game; the game industry is very important for rural communities and the rural economy. In a way, we are in a win-win situation. On the moorland in my constituency where grouse shooting is prevalent, the management practices—heather management and predator control—benefit not only the grouse, which cannot be bred artificially, but ground-nesting birds such as curlew, golden plover and lapwing.

Indeed, an interesting situation is developing in my constituency, where one of the estates is seeking to plant quite large areas of woodland. Those plans are being opposed, or certainly not being smiled upon, by Natural England, which is worried that those woodland areas will become a harbour for predators, which will go on to the neighbouring moorland, where there is not a grouse shoot and so no gamekeepers are operational, and wipe out large numbers of the ground-nesting birds that Natural England seeks to protect. Those ground-nesting birds, particularly the curlew, are very important.

Of course, it is also important for scientific research that there is a humane method of capturing foxes and, for example, tagging them to allow them to be tracked. I have seen video of a fox that was caught in one of the new types of cable restraint—in fact, foxes are sometimes caught on a number of occasions—and released unharmed.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) about how the new type of humane cable restraints is very different from the old self-locking snares that were made illegal in 1981—and quite right, too. As we have heard, such restraints have a number of features, including a stop that means that they will not strangle a fox, and smaller species that go into a snare will escape unharmed. They have a breakaway, meaning that if a large animal such as a deer gets into a snare, it will be able to escape by breaking the breakaway —of course, if the gamekeeper knows his job, he will not put a snare in a place where those species could be present. Finally, there is a swivel, which means that if the animal twists and turns a little when it is first caught, it will not strangle itself in the process.

It is important that cable restraints are not set near fences, for example, and that they are well anchored so that if an animal is restrained, it remains there. When the gamekeeper visits the snare, he can humanely dispatch the fox. We can have a debate about whether foxes should be a protected species, but if we need to control foxes we need to do it in the most humane way.

What are the alternatives? Shooting is the most obvious, but shooting can be very difficult near settlements and in dense vegetation. The most important argument against shooting is that if a fox is wounded—often the shots are taken from quite a distance, given the cautious nature of foxes—it can go off and die in agony of gangrene or its wound. At least with cable restraints we do not have a situation where an animal is wounded and goes off to die. There are other alternatives such as gassing and poisoning, but, again, those could mean that non-target species are affected and cannot be released unharmed.

I believe that the continued professional use by trained personnel of cable restraints is important to our management of the countryside and our wildlife. The alternatives do not bear much scrutiny in terms of their relative humaneness. Set correctly and checked every 24 hours—indeed, checked before 9 o’clock in the morning, because most foxes are nocturnal—cable restraints are an important tool in our wildlife management. I hope we will continue to responsibly use cable restraints as a way of managing our countryside and ensuring that our wildlife and our economic interests in terms of game and agriculture are protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate in a measured way. Some 267 of my constituents signed the petition, which shows the huge love of nature and animals there is in my constituency.

Snares are indiscriminate, yet universally cruel. What is clear is that the non-statutory code is simply not enough to protect animals from painful injuries, suffering and death. As we have heard, that includes protected animals, such as badgers, and even cats and dogs. DEFRA’s own research shows that 68% of animals caught are not the intended target species. Under the code, snares should be checked twice, but the law only requires them to be checked once every 24 hours. It is hard to comprehend the volume of snares, given that 1.7 million are set every year. We have heard from other Members about the huge and lasting impact that snares can have on the wellbeing on animals, such as capture myopathy, panic immobility, thirst, starvation, dehydration and many more.

We know that snare users have admitted that non-target species have been caught in their snares. For example, DEFRA research from 2008 to 2010 showed that 60% of people using fox snares admitted that they had captured non-target species in them. Landowners who do not use snares do not want to go back to their use. There are many landowners, of many hundreds of thousands of hectares up and down the country, who no longer use snares, and will not use snares, because they view them as incredibly cruel.

We know that cats and dogs organisations are unified in their opposition to the use of snares because, within three years, 97 cats and 31 dogs were caught in snares. I am a dog owner—I have a dog necklace on today—and I would be horrified if, out in the countryside, my dog was unfortunate enough to step in a snare and be injured. I do not think that anyone should have to go through that.

Break-away snares, as we have heard in the debate, have been seen as almost an answer to this situation. However, 69% of badgers do not escape from those snares, so they are not a solution; they are not even 50% good at what they are saying they are good at. The National Anti Snaring Campaign commissioned TTI Testing to do tests on those snares; it found that a force of over 70 kg of weight would be needed on a 2 mm wide area of the snare to cause a break. That is a huge amount of force that would need to be exerted on a snare. If you have ever seen an animal in a bad situation, Mr Vickers, you will know that they are not directionally pulling; the forces are very dynamic when they are struggling and they will not be able to get out of those snares. That is why 69% of badgers were unable to escape from them.

We have also heard a lot about the different impacts of predators, but we have had a 64% decline in rabbits and a 44% decline in foxes. Declines in nature species are incredibly complicated. We cannot just say, “This is down to predators.” We have seen paper after paper looking at habitat loss, agricultural practices and their impacts on insects and other things that bird species might eat, and the lack of different crops and changes in sowing, and the impact on nesting spaces within that. The impacts of all of those different elements cannot just be laid at the feet of foxes or rabbits. It is absolutely a falsehood. It is a false flag.

Predation, yes, is an issue, but there absolutely are alternatives to snaring to help protect species from predation, whether through trap and release, electric fencing, wire netting, motion sprinklers, ultrasonic devices or the use of radios and reflective surfaces. There are many different ways of putting predators off, and ensuring that we have a habitat and landscape available to lapwings and curlews is the most important thing in their protection.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Does the hon. Lady genuinely think that those deterrence methods would be suitable, and work, on the vast thousands of acres on the North Yorkshire Moors, where lapwings and curlews need to be protected?

[Olivia Blake]

We know the nesting areas of certain birds, and we already put signs up to say, “Keep your dogs on a lead” or “Do not go in this area,” and I think that, actually, yes, where snares are no longer used—on many hundreds of thousands of hectares—those alternatives have been used well. We are not seeing any of the organisations that have moved away from snares saying, “Actually, it hasn’t worked; we want to go back to using snares,” because those alternatives have proved effective. I think that that needs to be on the record in this debate. It is just a false flag to say that predation is the problem here. Loss of habitat, and the impacts that we have had on our environment, cannot be understated in this, as I have said.

I just think that we need to ban snares because they are cruel and indiscriminate, as I have said, and there is nothing about them that we could not think outside the box and find an alternative for. I think we all have enough ingenuity that cruelty does not have to be the first and only option in the way that we manage our landscape and protect the species that are special to us.