Water Supply Disruption

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will recognise that I do not regulate the water companies in Wales, but I pay tribute to the community coming together to look after each other. That is something that we have seen across the country—people helping their neighbours. It is worth pointing out that each company has a vulnerable user register. At the moment, people are required to register for that, but there are other ways in which people can be proactively highlighted as potentially needing support. Thanks to the Digital Economy Act 2017, we have data sharing provisions and, when the secondary legislation comes forward in the near future, water companies will have the capacity to proactively identify vulnerable people so that they do not need to ask for help, but get that automatically.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The dreadful and unacceptable situation faced by thousands of water consumers needs urgent action and certainly would not be addressed by blunt tools such as nationalisation. Rather it begs questions about whether Ofwat has the powers and duties required to regulate the industry effectively and in the public interest. Will the Minister therefore commit the Government to the reform of Ofwat to ensure that it is fit for purpose?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will recognise the proactivity of her water company as it affects her constituents. By and large, Ofwat is doing a good job. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Jonson Cox and Rachel Fletcher, who is the new chief executive, what powers they need to further improve the performance of water companies and to help consumers and businesses. We are prepared to give them those powers and back the actions they take to make sure that the water industry is fit for purpose.

Anti-Corruption Strategy: Illegal Wildlife Trade

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing the debate. There have been some fine speeches, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was particularly moving. I have been involved in the debate for a long time and have sponsored events at Parliament to draw attention to the issue. The very fact that an ex-Home Office Minister, who is a senior and respected Member of Parliament, has taken the time to show how engaged he now feels in the debate is an indication of how much movement is being made. We are now at the point at which this controversy and scandal must be addressed seriously, both nationally and internationally.

I will not go through the numbers and facts behind the size of the trade—we have heard them many times today—but suffice it to say that we still do not fully understand the full relationship between this form of organised crime and other forms, including drugs, and the way it helps to underpin international terrorism. Our attention to animal welfare and protecting the elephant and rhino, and all those other species, is often justified because of organised crime, and we have now reached a point where that is fully understood. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling brought us back to the important point: this is also about protecting some very precious and important species.

Let me provide a little detail on the issues involved. We know that there is still a great deal of work to do in the countries where poaching takes place, and there is an absence or inadequacy of measures to track performance on stopping poaching in the first place. Officials and employees are badly paid, and in some cases rangers provide information on patrols or the location of animals. On occasion they turn a blind eye to poaching. We also know that we get false documentation in the trading environment, and that a blind eye is turned to checks and inspections at borders. That is all underpinned by corruption, which illustrates the scale of the challenge.

I pay tribute to those NGOs that have worked so hard on this for many years, in particular the WWF and IFAW. They are clear about what is needed at the conference in London later this year: we want, and need, a zero-tolerance policy on corruption. The UK has a lot of soft power on this issue, and we must go out and urge those countries where poaching, trafficking and buying takes place to continue to support strategies that deepen an understanding of the risk of corruption. Mitigation strategies may also be required to address the corruption that enables that illegal trade. As an important international power—even now—we are in a position to help and support those countries.

We must strengthen the legal framework and facilitate law enforcement for illegal wildlife trade. At the event I sponsored about three years ago, Interpol was in the room. Will the Minister say to what extent we are still engaged in such international co-operation? Can she guarantee—I am sorry to bring this into the debate; I do not want to, but I have to—that post Brexit we will still have that international co-operation, particularly with Interpol and European crime agencies, to ensure that we continue to tackle the issue successfully?

Finally, I want to mention the ban. The consultation finished at the end of the year, and I have attended meetings on this issue. What I really want to hear from the Minister is when we will get detail about the outcome of the consultation. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was absolutely right: now is the time to take action, so the sooner we hear from the Minister, the better. I understand the need for exemptions, and the point raised by the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) about musical instruments was well made. I also accept the need to get those exemptions absolutely right for the antiques trade. That will not be easy, but if we do get it right, we will gain the co-operation of that market. That will make it a lot easier for us, as a major international power, to demonstrate not only that are we legislating to do our bit to stop the illegal trade—perhaps by banning the domestic trade in antique ivory, with exemptions—but that we also have the full co-operation of those involved in that market. I will finish on that important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I have already pointed out that we have funded the British military to provide tracker training. I attended a project in South Africa, where we have worked with an organisation involving the Tusk Trust to increase anti-poacher training and the techniques to do that. More than one Member has asked about this, but we are investigating, as the 25-year environment plan said, the feasibility of a more established poaching taskforce. Just last week, I was in France speaking to my opposite number and we will explore options together. This work does not need to solely involve the UK Government or the British military; there should be a collective effort to extend it.

The Crown Prosecution Service has worked with officials in key states such as Kenya and Tanzania to share its expertise and to help to strengthen the enforcement activities in those countries. Part of the UK Government’s funding is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ IWT Challenge Fund. It funds 47 projects around the world and has a value of just over £14 million.

Those projects include training of rangers, border force agents and prosecutors; campaigns to reduce the demand for products in key markets; supporting legislative reform; and helping communities to manage their wildlife and benefit from it, for example through tourism. It also funds projects aimed at tackling corruption, by engaging with Governments, enforcement agencies and the private sector. There is also mapping of one area, as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton referred to. The next round of the IWT Challenge Fund is expected to open for applications later this year. I am sure that we will welcome any new projects, and I hope to announce the successful applicants to round four of the fund later this spring.

We are also strengthening action against IWT at home. We have consulted on proposals to introduce a total ban on UK sales of ivory, with narrowly defined and carefully targeted exemptions. It was welcome that we received more than 70,000 responses, with overwhelming support for a ban. A response to the consultation will be published shortly.

I know that hon. Members often ask, “What is ‘shortly’? When will it happen?” We want to ensure that any ban we propose will be effective and will not be open to legal challenge. That is why we need to go through, very carefully, every representation that has been made to us. If we did not do that, we would be subject to legal challenge, which could derail the legislation that is already being drafted on some of the big items, where there is no dispute about what we want to take forward. I can assure the Chamber that officials and lawyers are already actively working on this issue.

In the short time I have left, I will again mention the London conference. It will have three main themes—

[Angela Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

Forgive me, but I want to try to get through as many of the points that Members raised as possible.

IWT is a serious organised crime, so one area that we will focus on is illicit financial flows and corruption, which is key, as well as strengthening networks of law enforcement agents and helping frontline countries to co-ordinate across the trade routes. As I referred to earlier, we will build coalitions, including with the NGOs, and we will continue to work on encouraging countries to close markets in this trade.

Quite a lot was said about bagpipes, which I am sure are a key reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recognised the need for musical instruments to have an element of exemption.

In addition, I recognise today the absolute passion shown by the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge asked about the situation post Brexit. I can assure her that our commitment to working with Interpol, and indeed with our friends in the EU, will continue unabated. As for the scientific committee, it is fair to say that our experts from Kew and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are well regarded. We will need to work on how we take that co-operation forward in future.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was right to praise and to be proud of the specialist crime unit in Scotland. The hon. Member for Stroud asked a specific question about official development assistance. The Department for International Development already provides funding for the National Crime Agency to tackle corruption specifically; I think there is work in 29 countries around the world. That work will continue.

One thing that it is worth pointing out is that of course we want to tackle poaching but hon. Members will recognise that we also need to do a lot of work to preserve habitat, because the destruction of habitat is also a major challenge.

With regard to the beneficial ownership of overseas territories, in reality progress is happening. The UK concluded an exchange of notes with overseas territories with financial centres and with the Crown dependencies on the exchange of beneficial ownership. That work is moving on. I recognise that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton may want quicker progress in that area, but I can assure her that beneficial ownership information should be available on request within 24 hours, or within one hour in urgent cases.

We are preparing for post-Brexit—the IT systems that we need to upscale and the issuing of permits to support the movement of such elements. I have already said no to meeting Duncan McNair, but I know that officials have agreed to meet him, so that is at least something. As for the historic, artistic and cultural objects test, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton will need to wait for the response to the consultation. Overall, we are taking action.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the anti-corruption strategy and the illegal wildlife trade.

Leaving the EU: Chemicals Regulation

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate the EAC on its report and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on her very clear and detailed explanation and defence of its recommendations, which I entirely endorse.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark). He had no need to justify his position as both an MP for a constituency with oil and gas interests and as someone with an interest in the environment. If we dichotomise those two very important issues, we do a disservice to the country. The oil and gas industry remains important; it will not disappear overnight. We need to work hard to reconcile those two key interests as much as we can.

This topic is critically important. I am chair of the all-party group on the chemical industry, and this report is of great interest to me and to the all-party group. I reinforce the point that the chemicals sector directly contributes £6.4 billion to the UK economy each year and employs approximately 88,000 people—in all the areas that my hon. Friend outlined but also in areas such as the south bank of the Humber, where it is a critically important employer.

As has been pointed out, 60% of our chemical exports go to the European Union, and 75% of our imports in this sector come from the bloc. We must recognise that the chemicals sector has an important impact on all manufacturing sectors—in my constituency, for instance, we have the steel sector, which is an important downstream recipient of chemical products—and therefore the knock-on effects of regulation in this sphere will be profound and felt far and wide.

[Mary Creagh]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the brilliant work that she has done in chairing the APPG and ensuring that the voice of the chemicals industry is heard loud and clear in this place. Does she agree that the issue is not just upstream but downstream chemicals, affecting things as diverse as kidney dialysis chemicals and machines, artificial limbs and so on? It spreads right out into the medical industry as well. We do not want there to be unintended or unforeseen consequences, because chemicals really do network out into every nook and cranny of our lives.

[Angela Smith]

I agree. That is why chemicals are considered one of our key foundation industries that is of profound importance to the UK economy in every respect. On that basis, it is imperative that we get this right; on that, at least, I hope that we all agree.

The Environmental Audit Committee made several very sensible recommendations as part of its inquiry. However, in their response, the Government have given very little away about policy proposals. Nine months later, and with the Brexit date looming on the horizon, I, alongside the sector, the members of the Committee and Parliament more generally, remain deeply concerned by the lack of clarity.

What do we know and what do we not know? Against the Committee’s explicit advice, the Government are attempting to use the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to give Ministers the power potentially to create a new UK-based regulatory body to replace REACH. The industry has made it abundantly clear that replacing REACH would be costly and over-bureaucratic. It would also potentially limit important access to data, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and to scientific collaboration, a point made powerfully by the Royal Society of Chemistry.

REACH represents the gold standard in international chemical regulations, and there is no appetite at all in the industry for degrading regulatory standards, I am pleased to say. What is more, if companies are to continue trading with the EU, compliance is, in the words of the Chemical Business Association, “non-negotiable”. Failure to comply means no market access and therefore no trade, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

As I said, creating a body like the one that we are discussing risks costing the public purse and taking a huge amount of time, simply to add another layer of bureaucracy for no practical purpose whatever. After all, substances requiring evaluation or authorisation will already have achieved that status by complying with REACH by this year’s deadline of 1 May. I ask the Minister these questions directly. Will she urge the Government to reconsider their approach to chemicals regulation post Brexit? Can she assure the industry today that we will remain in full regulatory alignment, both in the transition and in the long term?

Another area causing immense concern relates to the registration process. The Committee recommended that “as a minimum” the Government should ensure that the UK retain the registration element of REACH. The Government even acknowledge that any company wanting to trade with the EU will have to engage with that element of REACH. So why leave it? In the short term, companies need assurance that REACH registrations made before May 2018 will remain valid post Brexit, because otherwise, why bother, why do it? Millions of pounds have already been spent on registrations. The Chemical Industries Association says that if companies have to re-register everything because of Brexit, the cost will be in the region of £350 million. That is not pocket money; it is a significant sum that could have a serious impact on the industry.

The uncertainty is enormously problematic for companies, which need REACH registrations to operate but are reluctant to make the payments in case they become invalid. That dilemma risks an exodus of companies from the UK to the European Union—to other member states—and has already led a number of companies to spend vast sums of money opening up offices on the continent.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is making a brilliant point. As she sets it out, I am struck more and more by the fact that the Government like to talk about sound finance, but actually our own chemicals regime starts to look more like an ideological indulgence, an extravagance, with, of course, other people’s money—taxpayers’ money and the chemicals industry’s money.

Does she agree that many of the only representatives of American firms based here are now having to—or will have to—shut up shop and set up in other countries? Not only are our own companies moving out into the European Union, but companies from third countries, which use the UK as a springboard into that integrated European market, are also going shopping and setting up elsewhere.

[Angela Smith]

I agree with that latter point. On the first point that my hon. Friend made about ideological indulgence, I find it enormously frustrating that we are set not only to spend large sums of public money to achieve satisfaction and indulge ourselves ideologically, but to ignore the voice of business. I find it startlingly difficult to comprehend why what has always seen itself as the party of business is ignoring those very important voices—I just find it absolutely unbelievable.

Two years after the referendum, I still find it hard to reconcile my understanding of the party of Government. I have always respected it as a party that has always listened to the voices of those who make the wealth that keeps this country going, but it is no longer doing that—all in the name of a project that will damage the country’s economy in the long term. I find it absolutely astonishing, I have to say.

I ask the Minister what she is doing to give clarity to business in this area. Should businesses continue to make REACH registrations and will these registrations remain valid post-Brexit, or at the very least during the implementation period? Have her Government colleagues broached these subjects with their European counterparts during negotiations? I think we need to know—Parliament has a right to know this.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the easiest way to resolve these issues would be to stay in the single market and, as a consequence, to remain within REACH? That is the easiest way forward. It is the way forward that the chemicals industry prefers, and it would solve so many problems. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that she can provide some clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for securing this crucial and topical debate. Some interesting and intriguing points and concerns have been raised. The hon. Lady has already said that she feels as though the Government are treating the chemicals industry as a Cinderella industry. Her point about zombie legislation was not lost on Members, and her detailed knowledge of this subject is admirable.

Other Members made clear their concerns about the loss of jobs and the possibility of animal testing, which raises another unnecessary problem that we would have to deal with. Many other important questions are as yet unanswered. It was good to hear that the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) might cross the divide—that intrigues me—but it was reassuring that he has already become a devotee of the EAC. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is one of the very few people who have got the pronunciation right.

[John Mc Nally]

Am I? If I can say “Auchtermuchty”, and so on, it is fairly easy.

The hon. Lady raised the importance of getting the transition right and reiterated that we need policy certainty on this issue. The modesty of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and her understanding of the complexity of this inquiry is to be admired. She is without doubt a very able and knowledgeable MP, as I have learned.

It has been a privilege to be a member of the Committee, as it is to follow the hon. Lady. As well as benefiting from my deeply committed and knowledgeable colleagues, I have relished fighting on issues that I am passionate about. Highlighting the need to protect our precious environment against pollution on a local, national and international level has been my mission. From the scourge of plastic microbeads and nurdles on our beaches, to plastic fibres from clothing that poison our waterways, the Committee has shone a light on environmental issues that the public want and need to know about. The Committee has successfully alerted corporate giants to their responsibility to communities and to the wider world that we share. We have never shirked asking difficult questions. I wish to acknowledge our Chair, the hon. Member for Wakefield, and I am sure that my colleagues want to do the same. In my opinion, she provides the best model for the operation of a successful Committee.

I, too, was on the trip that the hon. Lady mentioned to America prior to last year’s election. The Committee visited Washington DC to meet various agencies, senior academics and scientists. We were told by one of the scientists there that they had already had 100,000 companies registered in Ireland. That immediately raises concerns, and it reinforces what has been said today. We were all warned that Brexit threatened our membership of REACH and would result in disastrous consequences for our industries and economies. I was also warned that the Scottish Government’s competencies in environmental matters were facing an existential threat.

The chemicals industry is an economic linchpin, and we heard grave concerns from senior people who fear that Brexit may result in deteriorating standards if REACH is compromised. REACH has been widely described as the most complex piece of legislation ever undertaken in the EU’s history, and around 30,000 chemicals are registered under it at present. I think that in the UK something like 6,500 are registered under it at the moment. Meanwhile, as has been said, its membership is a passport to the global chemicals marketplace.

REACH standards are recognised by regulatory regimes worldwide. That enables exports worth £14 billion every year across the EU. By May this year—the looming deadline for registering chemicals under REACH—UK companies will have spent an estimated £250 million on the process over the past 10 years. If the unthinkable occurs and no agreement is hammered out between the UK and EU, are we then a UK out of EU reach? Chemical registration-related data sharing would cease to exist. That would be utterly disastrous for businesses and their investments, and they would have to reapply all over again. It would be an absolute nightmare for us to go through.

Let me turn to my homeland, Scotland. The Scots chemical industry is a truly international and invaluable part of the Scottish economy, second only to our thriving food and drink industry. It is a major exporter that delivers outstanding GVA and has shown remarkable resilience in these turbulent economic times. I believe that the most recent Office for National Statistics figures show that the Scottish sector maintained double-digit export growth between 2014 and 2015, before the recent weakening of the pound. Surely that success cannot be allowed to face uncertainty. As we know, the sector is acutely sensitive to any tariffs or barriers that would make exports less competitive. We must also think of the vast numbers of people employed in the sector, as has been said—more than 10,000 directly in Scotland and six times that figure indirectly—in an array of jobs ranging from manufacturing, sales and marketing to logistics. Chemical sciences account for 33% of all Scottish manufacturing.

The regulation system achieved through REACH allows us to protect our environment and therefore human health. Industry and the public—our constituents —cannot afford to wait for the UK Government to act on these issues. Industries will still need to meet EU regulations after we leave the EU if businesses are to continue trading, so why is the Government’s position so vague? We are painfully aware that prolonged uncertainty could cost the taxpayers of this country millions of pounds and leave our exports in disarray.

I believe wholeheartedly that membership of REACH is vital to allow unhindered movement of medicines and drugs post-Brexit. Yet when they were asked by the Environmental Audit Committee to take a pragmatic approach to the UK’s future relationship to the EU single market for chemicals, the Government gave a meaningless response that held no answer. That is simply not good enough. As for Scotland, its continuing transition to a low-carbon energy country must be allowed to continue. It is important for everyone that that approach is seen as a way forward for the environment. Everybody here has asked questions; we now demand some answers.

--- 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 Evans. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on securing this debate and I thank her Committee for its report.

The Government recognise that the UK chemicals sector is vital to the economy and to many other industries, often leading the way in research and innovation. Not only is it our second largest export industry, but it is a key component in almost all our other huge sectors. As the hon. Lady explained, chemicals are in many of the products and processes that we use. I am fully aware of the extent to which they can be in everyday products, and indeed in medicines and elsewhere.

The Committee’s inquiry took place nearly a year ago and we replied to it in July. I note that the Committee invited comments on our response. I have continued to meet the industry, and across Government, engagement with the industry and stakeholders will continue. I recognise that the principal concern of the industry—to ensure that existing REACH registrations remain valid—has not changed.

I also recognise that trade associations and other organisations have continued to call for the UK to stay in REACH. As I have explained elsewhere, given the principles set out by the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech, we will not stay in REACH per se but, through the provisions set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we will bring into law the regulations that put REACH into effect. That is important because the continuity will provide an effective regulatory system for the management and control of chemicals to safeguard human health and the environment. It will also minimise any market access barriers for UK companies trading with the EU.

It has been suggested that we are not listening to the voice of business, but I humbly point out that the Government are listening to the voice of the people by respecting the referendum result. It was reiterated throughout the 2016 campaign that a vote to leave was also a vote to leave the single market.

[Angela Smith]

I differ on the point that people voted to leave the single market. Nevertheless, I am sure the Minister just said that the Government will do their best to minimise any lack of access to the European market. Is that not an acknowledgement that there will be some damage to the industry if we leave REACH and have to set up our own regulatory regime?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will recognise that our future relationship is still a matter for negotiation. Phase 1 has happened and we are moving into phase 2. Having exactly the same regulation the day before and the day after we leave the European Union will minimise market access barriers for UK companies trading in the EU.

We agree that ensuring the continued validity of REACH registrations is a critical issue and fully recognise the investment that UK companies have made in the REACH registration process. We are clear that we want existing registrations, authorisations and approvals to remain valid in the EU and UK markets, which is clearly in the interest of businesses operating in the UK and the EU. That recognises the complex compliance activity that takes place through supply chains. As the hon. Member for Wakefield pointed out, it is not just about sales between companies but about the movement of goods through the supply chain within a company.

We want to avoid the unnecessary duplication of compliance activities undertaken by businesses prior to exit. That was set out in the Government’s position paper, “Continuity in the availability of goods for the EU and the UK”, published in August 2017, which also set out our principles for maintaining the availability of goods after exit.

It is likely that some products will be undergoing testing, registration or authorisation processes at the point of exit. For such cases, given the ambition for a close future relationship, the body carrying out the assessment should be permitted to complete it and the results should be recognised in UK and EU markets. That would be in the best interests of businesses across Europe, and I encourage them to work together to support that pragmatic outcome.

Although it would not be appropriate to pre-judge the outcome of the negotiations, we will discuss with EU member states how best to continue co-operation in chemicals regulation in the best interests of the UK and the European Union. That extends to aspects of knowledge sharing—it would be ideal to continue that work through the negotiations. For example, the EU is highly reliant on the expertise of the Health and Safety Executive in the assessment of chemicals, particularly biocides and pesticides.

I am aware that the guidance that the European Chemicals Agency published on its website about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has caused concern. That guidance reflects the EU’s view of what would need to happen if there were no future relationship between the EU and the UK. It does not, of course, take into account potential negotiated outcomes and I am pleased to note that that has now been acknowledged on the ECHA website. As hon. Members may be aware, the guidance has recently been updated to reflect issues about the transfer of registrations and authorisations.

We have increased resources within my Department, in the HSE—a body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions—and in the Environment Agency to work on chemicals policy and prepare to deliver an effective regulatory regime after we leave the EU. We have established a joint programme of work with HSE to deliver what we need to have in place for day one. I work with ministerial colleagues across Government from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the DWP, the Department for Exiting the European Union, the Department for International Trade and the Treasury.

We are also planning for a non-negotiated day one outcome to have a functioning chemicals regulatory and enforcement system. We are now scoping and designing what such a system would look like, including an IT system to replicate REACH. As the hon. Member for Wakefield pointed out, that includes the budget that has been released so far to scope that system.

On leaving the EU, our regulatory system and laws will be identical to those of the EU. There could be opportunities to consider improving the regulatory system to maintain standards in protecting the environment and human health. That is why we have considered the regulatory approaches of other countries, including those that are largely modelled on REACH.

Although we will not be part of REACH, there is an opportunity to work internationally to strengthen the standardisation of methods that assess chemical safety in support of the mutual acceptance of data to identify and share information on emerging concerns and on new approaches to risk assessments. In a global world where we share chemicals and have several existing chemicals conventions, it makes sense for our regulatory authorities increasingly to share that information to ensure that we have greater compliance and convergence in understanding and recognising the benefits and hazards that chemicals can pose. I do not see any reason why we cannot have that ambition once we leave the EU.

Forestry in England

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fifth report of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Forestry in England: Seeing the wood for the trees, Session 2016-17, HC 619, and the Government response, HC455.

It is always pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is good to see my friend from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs here. I have forgotten her constituency. Sheffield, is it?

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Penistone and Stocksbridge.

[Neil Parish]

Penistone and Stocksbridge, that is right. It is also good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), who sat on the Select Committee in the last Session and had a lot to do with this report, and who also chairs the all-party parliamentary group on forestry, and other hon. Members. It is also good to see the Minister is still in her place—congratulations.

Forestry and woodland provide multiple environmental, social and economic benefits. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that woodland provides at least £1.8 billion in social, environmental and economic benefits each year. Trees are beneficial for carbon capture, reducing flooding and improving air quality, as well as providing timber for commercial production and creating green spaces for people to relax in and enjoy. But it was particularly disappointing to hear the Government say that there is no need for forestry representation when discussing the UK’s exit from the EU. Given the nature of research and development and that forestry research is already underfunded, I ask the Minister to reconsider keeping this funding in place, in particular for disease control. I found the Government’s response to our report, if I may say, disappointing. I hope she will be able to address some of the concerns we all share about forestry.

I very much support the ambitions of the northern forest and I look forward to the Government bringing forward the practical application of creating a great woodland across the north of England. I ask of the Minister that at some stage we will be able to discuss exactly how this will be achieved. We have the national forest, which we will be able to expand, but I am keen to see whether we can find ways of bringing land into tree planting and take the farming community with us as we do it. There will be land very suitable for tree planting. The land north of Hull is some of the best arable and vegetable growing land in the country. We need to ensure we have this balance.

I am sure the Minister will also consider the type of forest we require. We require tree planting for the environmental, social and community benefits, but what really matters is how we deliver a large forest in the north of England in the future. I want to see a mixture. For instance, take the Blackdown Hills in my constituency: there is a lot of forest, farmland in between, copses and areas where people can stay, walk and enjoy themselves. Woodland is great and woodland is right, but we also need a mixture of landscapes for it to be enjoyed. I always remember driving through the Redwood forest in the United States of America. We drove through the forest for some three days. One of the Americans said to me, “Gee, have you been to the Redwood forest?” and I said, “Yes, I have, but I’ve almost seen enough of it.” I saw a tremendous amount of trees and they are fantastic, but I think we need a mixture of landscapes to really make it enjoyable for the public.

In our report we asked for a one-stop shop for farmers and landowners to get grants and advice on which trees to plant. So far, the Government have resisted this idea, but I think it will be more and more important to do that, because we have environmental schemes, which we can change as we move to a British agricultural policy that is much more linked to forestry, but we also have to ensure that support can be accessed reasonably easily and that it is encouraging farmers and landowners to plant trees. I have said many times in this House that when I was a young farmer, if I borrowed a lot of money to buy land and said to my bank manager, “Well, now I am going to plant trees,” he would say, “Mr Parish, you should plant something that may bring an income in a little sooner, rather than 50 or 60 years hence.”

I am not asking for a licence to print money for farmers, I am just saying that if we want to encourage farmers to plant trees—I believe that on marginal land and certain types of land they will be quite keen—they need the right support. Why should a farmer—perhaps a seventh generation, or even first generation, sheep farmer, beef farmer or arable farmer—be told, “Right, you must now plant trees.”? I do not think any Government will do that, but we can encourage farmers to plant more trees. This northern woodland will be a real challenge, but it could also be very successful. However— I say again—it has to be done in the right way.

I spoke before about the countryside stewardship scheme. We have found in the past few years that there have been fewer schemes in place and fewer trees planted. There is a real opportunity now, because the schemes under the EU common agricultural policy do not allow for enough tree planting, and where they do, we have to work out whether the tree is a tree or a sapling and all sorts of complications. I am sure that is something we can make much better.

I also acknowledge that the EU is part of the problem and that post-Brexit the policy can change. Farmers, I believe, will be interested in planting more trees. We can also plant trees in banks to help with flooding. We can have more forestation, more woodland, greater wildlife and retain soils in the fields and stop communities from being flooded. There are many advantages to changing this. Today, I listened to the Prime Minister set out our 25-year environment plan, for which I have much enthusiasm, but now I want to see the practical application of how we will meet these goals. If we want to change a financial regulation in banking, we change it and that hopefully fixes the problem, but if we want to plant millions of trees, we have to physically plant those trees, we have to find the land and the policies to do it. I am not saying that we cannot do it, but what matters is how we deliver that in the future.

Timber from the woodlands has many economic benefits. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has done much work on timber, timber use and natural timbers being used in this country. We also need to look at that. Going back to the New Forest—do we want woodlands just for recreation? Do we want them for the carbon capture? Or do we also want them for the wood they will provide in the future? We sometimes think that trees live forever. They do not, and we need to cut them down and then replant, so let us look at the type of trees that we are growing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in a very skilled, constructive and inclusive manner.

I start by declaring an interest. I am a member of the Woodland Trust and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, which the Chair of our Committee will be pleased to know. I chaired our sessions on the report because the Chair was indisposed, if I can put it that way, and was very pleased to do so. The report made 15 recommendations, and since it was published the Government have made good progress in some areas—for example, trees and woodland have become better embedded in cross-departmental Government policy, such as in the clean growth strategy—but in other areas the Government’s response has been rather weak, and some extra clarity is needed on their position.

Before I go through that, I want to refer briefly to the environment plan. It is very difficult to have this debate without referring to today’s publication of the 25-year plan, which is strong on rhetoric. This morning the Prime Minister delivered a bucolic vision of the countryside where everything smells nice and looks good, but the realities of the countryside are rather different. One of the challenges of this plan will be the need to establish how rigorous it is in terms of its ability to deliver. It has already been noted that there is no legislation planned to underpin the priorities of the plan and the delivery of its objectives. I note the commitment to a national tree champion, and it would be good to hear from the Minister —I, too, am pleased that she is still in her place—the detail of what exactly this national tree champion will deliver.

To return to the report, I will speak in turn about three important areas of policy. I hope the Minister will take my comments in the spirit intended and consider them carefully in her response. First, on funding, it became clear during our inquiry that the current system of grants and subsidies is not working, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said earlier—I nearly called him my hon. Friend. The countryside stewardship scheme was singled out for its tortuous system of administration. As he pointed out, our witnesses almost universally favoured a return to a one-stop shop system for grants. That would not only deliver a seamless and accessible approach to securing grants, but give more of a balance between forestry and agriculture, knitting the two together in terms of how landowners and farmers can deliver our objectives as a country.

The Secretary of State has told us that such a system cannot be implemented until we leave the European Union. However, we recommended that the Government take steps now so that they can reinstate such a system post-Brexit on day one, whenever that is. We have yet to see any evidence that any steps have been taken, although in his letter dated 24 November to the Chair of the Select Committee, the Secretary of State said that he is

“keen to interrogate”

the concept of a one-stop shop further, and to

“consider how such an approach could operate in future.”

I ask the Minister directly: can we expect the details of the review of countryside stewardship and the fruits of the Secretary of State’s thoughts on a one-stop shop to be published any time soon? Can we expect clarity, or perhaps even a Green Paper, on how all of it might work if the Secretary of State accepts that the concept represents the right way forward?

Ancient woodland is our most wildlife-rich land habitat. It is key to fighting climate change and tree pests and diseases. More than that, it is a priceless commodity that we should all cherish. It frustrates me enormously that the idea that we can destroy ancient woodland and replace it by planting elsewhere is still current in many circles, particularly in the planning system and the attitudes of some developers—not necessarily housing developers, but developers across the piece. I refer, of course, to the application in my constituency to build a motorway services station that would involve significant destruction of Smithy wood, which is ancient woodland. Local people feel strongly about it and do not accept that the destruction of ancient woodland is a price worth paying for the jobs that the service station would deliver.

One crucial recommendation of the report was that the Government maintain an up-to-date public register of ancient and veteran woodland. Such a register would provide a focus for scientific research and aid sustainable development and planning. It could form the cornerstone of woodland conservation policy—that is how important ancient woodland is to our tree heritage. The Government’s lacklustre response to that recommendation was to assess the feasibility of the idea. Since the report, the Woodland Trust has generously offered to support the register through funding, data management, staff resources and expertise. Have the Government finally managed to assess the feasibility of the recommendation, giving particular thought to the kind and constructive proposals made by the Woodland Trust?

Finally, on woodland cover, it was heartening to see the Government pledge £5.7 million at the weekend to help start the creation of the northern forest. I pay tribute to the Woodland Trust for its imaginative thinking, and I support wholeheartedly its efforts to raise the rest of the moneys required to deliver the project. Although I cannot commit personally to finding the rest of the £25 million, I will do all that I can to support the trust in that respect. It is important that the trees are planted in the right places and that we think through the project properly. I am sure the trust will do so.

There is a danger that the northern forest concept will overshadow and obscure the fact that the Government are currently failing badly on their targets for planting more trees generally, which are themselves limited in ambition. In our inquiry, the Select Committee recommended that the Government commit to reaching 12% woodland cover by 2060, and to plant 11 million trees by 2020. Whether or not the Government meet those targets will be the marker for whether their forestry policy as a whole has worked. The northern forest is good, but Parliament should not be fooled for a minute into thinking that it is the next stage in the Government’s forestry ambitions. As it stands, the target of 11 million trees by 2020 will not be met.

The Minister has said previously that the target will be met easily. I hope so, but I am not confident. The two years since the pledge was made have been two of the worst planting years on record. The rate has been roughly half what is required if the Government are to have any chance of fulfilling their commitment. That does not bode well for the long-term target, on which serious doubt has unsurprisingly been cast by the forestry sector. To reach it, planting rates would have to sit consistently at 5,000 hectares a year for the next 42 years, roughly double the rate of recent years. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.

We need to reach the short-term target of 11 million trees by 2020, and we need to reach the more ambitious target of 12% of woodland cover by 2060. The Secretary of State himself admitted that that is limited in ambition at the recent Woodland Trust reception—I think he referred to it as “pathetic”. If it is pathetic and limited in ambition, a target of 11 million trees by 2020 should be achievable. What will the Government do to achieve it, as well as helping the Woodland Trust deliver its northern forest?

Finally, I refer briefly to the comments made by the Chair of the Select Committee about the need for mixed planting and the role of forestry in our economy and agricultural system, in terms of recognising its economic value more clearly. That was at the heart of the report. I completely acknowledge his points and agree with his comments. They were important points about the industrial role that timber can play in our economy and the need for the Government to properly support our foresters and the role of forestry in the economy. The grant system is at the heart of all that, and it must work properly if we are to improve forestry’s role in our economy and make it more robust. I look forward to the Minister’s points, particularly on that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

The original target was 2020, but this Parliament goes on until 2022. Which is the relevant date?

[Dr Coffey]

I am pleased to say that we made that pledge in 2015, which naturally would take us to 2020. We restated the pledge in 2017, so we have restarted the clock. It will be a further 11 million trees by 2022—in this Parliament. I believe we will do that comfortably, not least because HS2 Ltd is setting aside money, £5 million, for schemes and will plant trees over the next few years, so I am confident that we will go past that target. In this debate, we are focusing on the schemes relating to DEFRA, which is where I intend to focus my attention.

We want England to benefit from significantly increased woodland cover by 2060, which is why we stand by our shared aspiration to achieve 12% woodland cover. We will achieve that only through a mix of private and public investment. I reiterate that it is a key part of the Government’s clean growth strategy, which identified the milestone of an extra 130,000 hectares to be planted by 2032.

I recognise the slow start of take-up of the countryside stewardship scheme and the woodland carbon fund. However, we have made a number of changes, partly driven by our review. I am confident that by focusing our efforts and making these changes, we will see an increase in tree planting.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge asked that question, too. The tree champion will help to co-ordinate activity. This is about having trees in the right place. I see them very much as an ally in ensuring we pull together the different stakeholders. They will also be a champion for urban trees and will ensure the trees we have stay in the ground, particularly in our urban environment. We are making progress in a variety of ways, and the tree champion will be a key part of that.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I want to make some progress, because I have plenty to say.

To return to the different schemes, I had the pleasure of visiting the Lowther estate last month and planting the first of 213,000 trees this winter. That has been funded through the countryside stewardship scheme. I was shown its plans for future woodland schemes for a rich mix of broadleaf corridors and softwood plantations that together will provide commercial forestry as well as huge benefits for wildlife. That was truly impressive.

I was delighted that the largest forest to be planted in more than 30 years finally got the green light. The first of more than 600,000 trees will be planted this March at Doddington North moor. That 350-hectare forest will store 120,000 tonnes of carbon, help to manage flood risk, boost timber industry businesses and jobs, and help red squirrel populations. That was funded through the woodland carbon fund.

Most recently of all, as already alluded to, I know that hon. Members are applauding the launch of the northern forest. We expect 50 million trees to be planted for communities along the M62 corridor—truly a green heart, or ribbon, for the northern powerhouse. That long-term project is led by our friends at the Woodland Trust and England’s Community Forests, and we are kick-starting it with DEFRA funding to accelerate this ambitious project. I understand that our partners have already managed to secure extra funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, and I am confident that over the timeline of the project, given their successful track record—which is why we are partnering with them to achieve it—they will be able to take advantage of not only corporate funding but development schemes that attract other kinds of Government funding.

We have continued to work with the industry and reviewed the schemes that we have in place to encourage more planting. In taking a number of steps to remove barriers that were discouraging applications for funding to support tree planting, we have made internal changes to improve operational processing. For example, the country has been mapped by the Forestry Commission, which has worked with Natural England to identify appropriate areas for significant afforestation. The commission is also working with National Parks to identify suitable planting areas, and I am looking forward to visiting the South Downs tomorrow to discuss that further.

We have raised the environmental impact assessment threshold for afforestation to 50 hectares in mapped low-risk areas, with full prior notification of relevant details required below that threshold to ensure that we maintain the environmental protection. The Forestry Commission has also set up a large-scale woodland creation unit to support the development of projects by directly influencing landowners. I am grateful to the chair of the Forestry Commission, Sir Harry Studholme, for stepping up his efforts. With him, I will be meeting landowners and estate managers later this month.

Informed by the review, we improved the application forms for the countryside stewardship scheme for 2018 and released guidance three months earlier than in the previous year, in effect significantly extending the application window, which opened last week. The woodland carbon fund, the aim of which is to provide larger forests—to recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin)—is a one-stop shop process administered by the Forestry Commission. Again, we have made significant changes, including lowering the planting threshold to 10 hectares, providing funding for forest roads and making a second-stage payment five years after planting. We have now received two more applications and I am aware of another 10 that are to be submitted.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet talked about the domestic carbon market and, as was highlighted in the clean growth strategy, we wish to establish that. That is my intention. The industry says that it needs more confidence that the planting rates are getting under way before we can establish something that is financially resilient, but I am confident that we can achieve that.

On there being two schemes, we are keeping both because they have different objectives. The countryside stewardship objectives include improvements in biodiversity and habitat, flood mitigation and water quality, while the woodland carbon fund focuses on largescale carbon capture. In both cases the UK forestry standard is the guideline on the mix of planting, which does not predefine the split of species, but diversification of planting, as we have heard, helps to improve woodland resilience and protects future supplies of timber, biomass and other benefits.

We are also considering future schemes carefully. I have previously challenged the sector on improving the quality of woodland creation plans so that they clearly satisfy the expectations of the UK forestry standard. I am pleased that the Forestry Commission, the Institute of Chartered Foresters and key forestry stakeholders are working together to develop support tools, training and communications to upskill all parties involved in the design, assessment and delivery of forestry proposals. Some of the most recent woodland creation planning grant applications have shown a high quality of design planning and are being used as exemplars to guide future applicants.

On active management, which has been discussed extensively today, we know that improving markets for hardwood timber will bring more undermanaged woodlands into production. This year we will continue to promote the market opportunities for timber. Our work with the ICF and other organisations to improve the quality of plans and the way in which we process them will reduce the time taken to get the management plans in place. We do not only support new planting. We offer options through countryside stewardship to support the active management of the woodlands we already have. Since 2016 we have had nearly 600 woodland management applications, which would support more than 44,520 hectares, bringing them back into active management.

On ancient woodland, my officials have met the Woodland Trust and other groups to discuss how best to prevent the loss of such woodland. We recognise its importance and that is why ancient woodland enjoys the special protection that will be further enhanced in the updated national planning policy framework. That said, our records show that there are 340,000 hectares of ancient woodland, which is 26% of total woodland area, and that between 2006 and 2015 just 57 hectares, or 0.02% of the overall ancient woodland area, were lost permanently to other land uses. We are exploring the opportunities for better recording the loss of ancient woodland, including the potential for updating the ancient woodland inventory. I understand that officials are still in discussion with the Woodland Trust about the detail, but its support is welcome.

On other Committee recommendations not already covered, Forestry Commission England will continue to publish the headline performance updates, which include the rate of new principal Government-supported tree planting and both the total area and the percentage of woodland in England in active management, on a quarterly basis. The Forestry Commission will review the indicators it publishes on woodland creation, aiming to reflect the creation supported by Government more clearly. The commission has also committed to providing the sector with information on short to medium-term expectations of planting rates, based on grant applications received and those in preparation. My officials have discussed with the Committee on Climate Change the long-term trajectory for woodland planting to match the five-year carbon budgets and our 2060 aspiration.

On the industrial strategy, it is for the industry to come forward with a proposal for a sector deal, but I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we absolutely support the industry. On skills and apprenticeships, the Forestry Commission worked with the sector to create a new apprenticeship standard, and it is liaising with industry, the Royal Forestry Society and the Institute for Chartered Foresters on the creation of higher-level forest manager apprenticeships. The commission is engaging colleges, training providers and assessment bodies to promote take-up of the standard. A small number of universities in the UK also provide forestry degrees, and last year I was pleased to meet students and recent alumni at Bangor University.

At the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we are identifying options to encourage the use of more domestic timber in construction. Nothing will happen overnight, but the clean growth strategy clearly supports the use of more home-grown timber in construction. We will work with Confor, Grown in Britain and the sector. The locked-in carbon is the essence—instead of concrete, metal and all the other things, we can achieve things just as well with wood.

Across Government, we will continue to explore how to do more for British forestry and timber-processing businesses. On the renewable heat incentive scheme, we want to ensure that waste wood is used only in specifically designed boilers. On research—I am running out of time and I appreciate that the Chair of the Select Committee may wish to reply briefly—I assure him that we have developed strong links with the industry and non-governmental organisations. Forest Research devotes 25% of its budget to knowledge exchange. We also work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to explore future business models. European Union funding is also possible, although EU regulation does not cover forestry. Finally, in response to the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), I have to be candid: future funding arrangements are a matter for further discussion between the Governments of the different nations. I can give no pledge today.

I hope that I have covered all the subjects I wished to. We have made some changes and we are seeing an uptick in the number of trees being planted. People are applying more through our different schemes, and I encourage them to do so further. We will continue to monitor that, adapting as necessary to achieve our ambitions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I agree with the hon. Lady. We are absolutely committed to that, and it has been in our manifesto for the past two years. Aspects of the environment are improving, and with our 25-year environment plan, which will be published shortly, we will continue to set out that agenda for the next generation.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

14. What plans he has to ensure the welfare of puppies traded between the UK and EU countries after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)]

We are actively looking to see what we can do in this area. Leaving the European Union provides us with new opportunities to deal with the illegal trade in puppies.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, once the EU pet travel rules have been transferred to the UK statute book, the scheme will be reviewed as a priority, taking into account the recommendations of the Dogs Trust? As he well knows, the trust has campaigned tirelessly for a number of years to change and improve the scheme.

[Michael Gove]

It is not just the Dogs Trust that has campaigned; the hon. Lady has campaigned, too. She and the Dogs Trust are right that we need to look at the law. We hope to make announcements even before we leave the European Union about how the law can be improved.

I place on record my thanks to the Dogs Trust because, of the two dogs in the Gove family home, one is a rescue dog that the trust was responsible for finding.

Sale of Puppies

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate on a subject that is dear to many hon. Members’ hearts, including mine. He gave an account of his first family pet when he was young, and I never give up the opportunity in such debates to talk about Mono, a rather erratic border collie that I adopted from the RSPCA. He lived to a good age and, certainly in the last seven years of his life, had a good life on our farm.

As a Back Bencher and a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I campaigned to change the rules around the licensing of puppy breeding. I was therefore pleased to have the opportunity to become a DEFRA Minister, and then to become responsible for companion animals. For once, I was in a position to see through something that I had sought for some time. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, many people and organisations have been calling for more restrictions on the breeding and selling of dogs. I initiated a consultation, which Lord Gardiner has continued, and I now have the opportunity to update the House on some of our plans.

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that many of the ideas that he outlined are exactly what we are planning to do and exactly what we have already consulted on. The Government will be replacing existing laws on the breeding and selling of dogs with a stricter licensing regime. The regime will, for the first time, be linked directly to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and will introduce several important changes. First, we will lower the threshold under which a dog breeder needs a licence, moving it from five litters or more to three litters or more, thus ensuring that more commercial dog breeders will be required to have a licence.

Secondly, we will require all dog breeders and the sellers of all pet animals, including dogs, to adhere to statutory minimum welfare standards that will be linked to the welfare needs set out in the 2006 Act. That is important for raising standards and improving consistency in the licensing regimes that local authorities put in place. Thirdly, we will remove the exemption through which some people who breed from their own pet dog claim that they do not need a licence to sell puppies. Fourthly—the hon. Gentleman made this point—we intend to reward licensees who are considered to be at low risk of breaching the new regulations with longer licences and fewer inspections. We could, for instance, recognise those who sign up to United Kingdom Accreditation Service-accredited schemes run by groups such as the Kennel Club, and the new regulations will provide for that.

Finally—this goes to the heart of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised—we intend to make it clear that anyone in the business of selling dogs online will need a licence from their local authority. As he says, our legal view has always been clear that the 1951 Act, which regulates the licensing of pet shops, already provides that anyone in the business of selling dogs, whether they have a shop on the high street or are selling online, requires a licence, but we have accepted in the consultation that there may be a sense of ambiguity. We therefore want to place the requirement beyond any doubt, so I reassure him that we will be doing precisely what he asks for.

There have also been calls for more robust inspections. The statutory minimum welfare standards will have to be applied by local authorities, and the regulations will be accompanied by guidance to which local authorities must have regard. The regulations will require all inspectors to be suitably qualified, and the guidance will set out what “suitably qualified” means.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am pleased to hear about some of the proposed changes. However, who will bear the cost of training suitably qualified inspectors at the local authority level?

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Lady knows, local authorities already have budgets for such things and departments that deal with animal welfare. We will be addressing exactly what is required by “suitably qualified”. Most local authorities already have people who are suitably qualified, although they might require additional training.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I intend to return to that issue.

I conclude on the licensing point by thanking the many stakeholder organisations and animal welfare groups that have already contributed to our contribution and the formulation of these draft regulations. The hon. Member for Islwyn raised a point about the sale of puppies under eight weeks old, and he said that the first dog he had was sold at two and a half weeks. A couple of things are being done. First, the microchipping regulations that were introduced two years ago already require that no dog can be sold until it has been microchipped, and it is unlawful to microchip a dog until it is eight weeks old. In the normal course of events, it is already the case that no dog under the age of eight weeks can be sold.

Again, there is some ambiguity under the 1951 Act, and some people have identified the fact that a small number of pet shops might have been able to sell dogs under eight weeks old. We will put the situation beyond doubt in the regulations by making it clear that no puppy below that age can be sold.

I want to move on to maximum sentences for animal cruelty as that is another important area in which we have recently made some announcements. The issue has been raised a number of times, including in private Members’ Bills promoted by several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). The Government have made it clear that we will increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence needs to be increased for the most horrific acts, such as deliberate, calculating and sadistic behaviour. The offences for which that would apply could include causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and holding organised animal fights. The existing six-month limit does not allow judges to pass the most appropriate sentence in such circumstances. We want to send a clear message that animal cruelty is not acceptable in our society, and a Bill to effect the necessary changes to the Animal Welfare Act will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I turn now to the question of a ban on the third-party sale of puppies. This issue is often raised and the hon. Member for Islwyn, to be fair, rightly pointed out the difficulty that enforcing such a ban might involve. We do not believe that a ban on third-party sellers is necessary, and that view is shared by many stakeholders. We believe that a better approach is to aim for more robust licensing of pet sellers, as well as continued encouragement that people source dogs from reputable breeders and see any puppy interact with its mother, and consider a rescue or re-homed dog first, alongside consumer pressure to drive down the sales of dogs from third parties such as pet shops. The evidence shows that that is already happening, with as few as 4% of pet shops now licensed to sell dogs. That figure is always declining, and the reality is that even fewer shops actually do so.

We want to drive up animal welfare standards rather than introduce bans that are difficult to enforce. That is why the new regulations will set statutory minimum welfare standards for all commercial pet sellers that the local authority must apply when considering whether to issue a licence. There will also be an opportunity to apply higher standards, with pet sellers and dog breeders able to earn recognition so that the better performers have a longer licence, with fewer inspections and a lower fee. We are developing a star system similar to that which applies to food hygiene, and that will be backed up by statutory guidance. The use of a risk-based assessment of operators and an emphasis on cost recovery will enable local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities and target enforcement on the poorer performers. It will also assist the public to make an informed choice when choosing a pet provider.

I turn now to the issue of online sales. I particularly wish to point out to hon. Members that the Department established the Pet Advertising Advisory Group some years ago. DEFRA has already published guidance on buying a pet and has worked closely with PAAG to drive up standards for online advertisements. It is important that we give credit where it is due, so I should like to take this opportunity to praise PAAG’s work, which has resulted in six of the largest online sites signing up to agreed minimum standards for sites that advertise pet animals for sale. The types of measures that have been introduced include: a requirement that all adverts display the age of the animal advertised, with no pet advertised for transfer to a new owner before it is weaned and no longer dependent on its parents; a permanent ban on vendors on a “three strikes and you’re out” basis, so that those who attempt to post illegal adverts can be blocked indefinitely from advertising on any of these sites; and steps to ensure that every “view item” page includes prominent links to PAAG’s advice on buying and selling a pet, which can ensure that someone who is searching for a dog or any other pet is targeted with informative emails to tell them what they need to know so that they will be able to care for that pet. The standards are being applied by half a dozen or so sites, including the main ones. People who are looking online should be advised to keep to those sites that have signed up to PAAG’s minimum standards.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. I, too, applaud PAAG for its work—it has been very successful—but some advertisements are disappearing only to be found on sites other than the big six. Surely the Minister agrees that the Government have done part but not all of the job of dealing with problems relating to online sales.

[George Eustice]

As I pointed out earlier, with the new regulations we are putting it beyond doubt that anyone selling online requires a pet licence. That is how the UK Government can address the issue. The hon. Lady will understand that we do not have jurisdiction over a classified ads operation based in Australia, for instance. What we can do, however, is to ensure that anyone who attempts to sell via the internet, wherever the classified ad website might be registered, will nevertheless require a licence. We continue to apply many of the other standards of the code, including the requirement that licensed breeders or sellers must display a licence number, and the need for an advert to include a photo of the pet and to set out its age. We have made good progress on online sales.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) asked about the responsibility of buyers. It is a sad fact that unsuspecting buyers sometimes unwittingly provide a lucrative market for rogue dog breeders and dealers. Potential buyers need to take great care when they are considering taking on a puppy. They should always insist on seeing the mother when they purchase a puppy. My hon. Friend asked whether there are warning signs. If someone arranges to meet at a motorway service station to sell a puppy, that should be a warning sign. Before people buy a puppy, they should consider whether they have the right lifestyle to look after a dog for the next 10 to 15 years and, if so, what type or breed of dog is right for them. They should also consider whether they are prepared to spend the sort of money and commit the sort of time needed to look after a dog for the duration of its lifetime.

There is plenty of advice out there to help people to make the right choice when they buy a puppy. Such advice includes making sure that the breeder is a member of the Kennel Club’s assured breeder scheme or signed up to the puppy contract, which is of course supported by many animal welfare organisations, including the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. Such advice can help to inform buyers before they make purchases. In addition, the new regulations I have outlined will help to ensure that puppies born in a licensed dog breeding establishment have a better chance than those born in backstreet breeding establishments.

Finally, I wish to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) about illegal puppy imports and to talk about some of the work we are doing on that. We are aware that some puppies may be smuggled into this country from abroad to be sold as pets. DEFRA takes the illegal puppy trade seriously. Responsibility for deterring the illegal movement of puppies starts with their country of origin. Dogs, including puppies, and cats, including kittens, that move to the UK from EU member states, or from other low-rabies-risk third countries, must have received a rabies vaccination at not earlier than 12 weeks of age, after which there must be a wait of 21 days to allow immunity to develop. In practice, that means that puppies or kittens that enter the UK legally will always be a minimum of 15 weeks old.

The UK carries out more pet checks at the border than most member states. All pet animals that travel on approved routes are checked for their compliance to travel. Enforcement at the border also has an important part to play in combating the illegal trade. We are grateful for the Dog Trust’s continued support of the Dover puppy pilot. This partnership between the Dogs Trust, transport companies, Kent County Council and the Animal and Plant Health Agency has so far resulted in 649 non-compliant animals being seized and placed into quarantine since December 2015. DEFRA’s Animal and Plant Health Agency has also played a leading role. Crucially, it has helped to age puppies and identify those that have been illegally smuggled into the country when they are too young.

If a transport company suspects that undeclared pets are present in a vehicle, it can alert the appropriate authorities so that they can take the necessary action. Border Force and local authorities share intelligence and monitor movements, and Border Force officials are constantly searching vehicles for a range of things, and when they detect animals being smuggled in illegally, they alert APHA.

The Government are responding to concerns about the welfare of puppies. This issue has been dear to my heart both as a Back Bencher and as a Minister. I am sure that the hon. Member for Islwyn will be reassured to hear that the Government are already implementing many of the measures that he seeks. Indeed, perhaps reading our consultation gave him some thoughts about this area. I am clear that the measures that we are implementing will improve the welfare of our dogs and give them the respect that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Badger Culling

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

We could go through every country in the world—I will mention a few others—but I am talking about a recent experience that is nearer home, in Wales. I also want to talk about the Krebs trial, which is the most ambitious trial carried out, and one that was entirely science-based and prejudice-free. Furthermore, the cost of killing one badger in the culling process in England is not £700, but nearer £7,000.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with relating badger culling in England to killing possums in New Zealand is that they are two very different animals, with different ecologies, and in completely different landscapes and environments?

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed, yes. It is deer in Australia, and there are various problems throughout the world, but in Wales, the neighbouring country to England, we have a very satisfactory situation. Peter Martin was critical of the Farmers Union of Wales for not appreciating what had been done in Wales. He suggested that it should be celebrating the success of the Welsh Government and

“calling on DEFRA and the NFU in England to follow the Welsh example of reducing bovine TB by focusing on improved cattle testing and movement controls. New incidents of bovine TB in cattle are now down by 28% in Wales with a 45% cut in the number of cattle being slaughtered. This now leaves 94% of the Welsh herd TB free, without killing any badgers.”

Ireland has had a fascinating experience. In the 1980s the Irish decided to slaughter all the badgers in the country, which were estimated at 70,000. They exceeded their own expectations, however, because they have culled 96,000 badgers since 1985. The national operation consisted of teams of 100 contractors setting up 6,000 snares a night, working for eight months of every year. In 2012 a whopping €3.4 million was spent culling 6,939 badgers, yet after all that slaughter an examination found that the reduction on the previous year in the number of cattle diagnosed with TB was 55—after that huge expense. That is €61,818 for every cow below the previous year’s figure. It is staggering that that huge amount was spent and so many animals were killed for so little benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—I was going to say “my hon. Friend”, but of course formally we are not friends. The hon. Gentleman has made a passionate defence of Government policy. I hope he understands that other people feel equally passionately on the other side of the debate. It is testimony to the nature of this place that we will continue to have robust debates, in the best democratic tradition, whatever happens.

[Richard Drax]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Smith]

I will of course, although I have not said anything yet!

[Richard Drax]

May I first refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which I forgot to do earlier? The hon. Lady rightly says that views are passionately held on both sides. Certainly on one side, there is sometimes, by a minority, mindless violence and intimidation. Will she condemn that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

I am always happy to condemn violence and intimidation of any kind.

I congratulate the lead petitioner, Simon King, who has not been mentioned so far and who managed to amass the 100,000 signatures needed to secure the debate. That we managed to get over the 100,000 threshold demonstrates the degree of interest in this topic outside the House. At this point, it is important that I declare an interest. I am a member of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, in which the lead petitioner plays a very active part, so I think I ought to put that on the record.

The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who made a very thoughtful contribution. However, I take slight issue with one of his points. For me, this is not about whether farmers get whatever they want from the current Government. I understand that farmers struggle very hard to secure a decent living. Their way of life is often very hard. Currently, many aspects of our agricultural sector are struggling to make ends meet. I want to put that on the record.

I also think that if we are to find a way forward on this issue, it is important in the long term to find consensus and common ground. I applaud those charities, including the Wildlife Trusts and the Save Me Trust, that have tried very hard—and are in many instances succeeding—to establish working relationships with farmers, so that we can start to find a way forward that brings all parties to the table, and so that we have constructive attitudes and dialogue instead of the rather divisive debate that has characterised all the discussions on badger culling so far.

I will not rehearse the whole history of badger culling over the past four to six years. Suffice it to say that at the heart of all the debates, all the questions tabled in the House on badger culling and all the disquiet relating to badger culling is a very deep sense of unease about the Government’s rather cavalier attitude towards the science on this issue.

I will start with the randomised badger culling trial. That 10-year project drew the conclusion, at the end of the period, that no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in England could be made through the use of badger culling. That was clear, and the Labour Government in 2009-10 determined that culling was not the way forward and invested in vaccination programmes. The incoming Government, as was their right, decided to act otherwise.

In April 2011, a panel of independent experts was convened to set clear parameters for pilot culls. What was really important about that period was that the Government had parameters that reflected the discipline established by the RBCT. I am referring, of course, to the land boundaries for culling, the time period allowed for culling, the percentage of animals to be culled and the need for repeated culling over a period of years. Those were the principal parameters put in place by that panel of experts in April 2011, and it was according to those parameters that the pilots were given the go-ahead. Despite significant opposition from parliamentarians such as myself and from huge numbers of people in the country, the pilots were given the go-ahead, and they were of course located in west Somerset and west Gloucestershire.

For me, the first breach of the science was the decision to go against the conclusions drawn by the experts at the heart of the RBCT. The second breach came when the first round of culling in the two pilot areas took place in 2013, because the number of badgers killed in the allotted six-week period was nowhere near the target required to make the cull in any way effective and so the time period was extended—I think it was nine weeks in one of the cull areas and 11 weeks in the other. The second breach, therefore, was of one of the key parameters for the pilot culling. The extended time period was the second breach of the science by Government policy.

The science was further breached when the independent experts panel reported on humaneness after the first round of culling. It stated that at least 7% of the badgers killed were killed inhumanely. However, rather than responding constructively to the panel’s findings, Ministers disbanded the panel—got rid of it.

That was followed in 2014 by new culling areas being announced. Let us remember that it was decided, when the parameters for the pilot culls were established, that a four-year culling period would be needed to demonstrate whether the approach would be effective. Despite all that, just two years into the pilot project, the practice of culling was extended. That was despite the data on the numbers at that point not demonstrating success in terms of meeting the criteria set in 2011. That was particularly the case in relation to the numbers that they managed to kill in those first two years in the two pilot areas.

Then, in 2015, the Government formally relaxed the criteria for culling in relation to the land area. The required land area was at least 150 square metres in extent, but that was suddenly reduced to 100 square metres, despite the majority of those responding to the consultation saying that such a change would be wrong. There was relaxation of the criteria in relation to the period of time allowed for any one cull and the minimum land area used for culling; the recommendation was that a minimum of 70% of the land area in the zone would need to be used for the culling, but that criteria was relaxed.

In summary, as time has gone on we have witnessed a blatant refusal by Government to follow the science. They have not only pursued this policy in opposition to the outcomes of the RBCT; they have gradually but significantly moved further and further away from the original scientific parameters established in April 2011. They have moved so far, in fact, that at this stage it is probably now impossible, in relation to the extended culling areas, to determine whether the approach is effective at all. They have moved so far away from the original parameters that culling, as practised in the last four years, has therefore been discredited. It has no basis in science, because the science has been distorted, twisted and, in the end, utterly abandoned.

The very least the Government can do is furnish Parliament with a full evaluation of the impact of culling in the two pilot areas—west Gloucestershire and west Somerset—where four years of culling are now complete. Back in the debate in September 2016, the Minister failed to answer my question about whether an evaluation would be commissioned. It is hard to imagine that this policy can do anything—other than lose the last desperate shreds of its credibility—unless such an evaluation is not only completed but made available to Parliament. The Government have an opportunity to rescue at least some credibility in relation to this issue, if they would only ensure that that is done. Having a pilot suggests that an evaluation will be made of whether it has worked. The Government need to do that work and present it to Parliament. If, on the basis of that evaluation, it is then concluded that the approach has not been effective, at that point the Government would have to explain why they further relaxed the criteria in 2014 and ’15 and why, in particular, they allowed the culling to be extended to other areas of the country.

In conclusion, we need to see a thorough, independent assessment of the pilot culls. We also need the Government to make international comparisons, and not only with other culling practices. Somebody has said to me already this afternoon, “You didn’t make your usual statement.” I will make it now: badgers are not possums. They really are not; they are completely different creatures. The Government should be making international comparisons with countries that have focused on vaccination as an alternative, where vaccination is used, as it is with other species, to establish a critical mass of immunity. That is the key point about vaccination. It is not about individuals necessarily; it is also about critical mass and ensuring immunity at a level that gives a country a sense of moving forward and eradicating diseases such as TB. There are countries that have focused on vaccination as an alternative. We have heard a lot about Wales this afternoon, where the approach appears to be working, and we know that Ireland is considering a shift to a different approach that would involve vaccination. Finally, and above everything, we need the Government to commit to abandoning culling if an independent evaluation of the pilot areas demonstrates a failure to deliver a meaningful, long-term reduction in the incidence of bovine TB.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am afraid that the BVA is a faith of many churches. To some extent, it probably depends on which veterinary surgeons people listen to.

[Angela Smith]

I, too, am an honorary life member of the BVA. The BVA has made it clear that it does not support the free shooting of badgers, because it is inhumane, as was proved by the independent expert panel. As things stand, the BVA is not particularly happy with how the culling is being conducted.

[Sir Roger Gale]

There is an attitude that we have to use every shot—unfortunately literally in this case—in the locker, and I believe that we are going down the wrong path. I say that with no pleasure whatsoever. If culling worked and eliminated TB in badgers and cattle, I could probably live with the fact that it was necessary, because in the long run it would be the kindest thing to do. But we do not know how many of the 15,000 slaughtered badgers have even had TB, because they have not been tested. Where is the science in that? We do not know whether cattle are giving TB to badgers or badgers are giving it to cattle, or both, because that has not been proven.

I accept that vaccination is costly and difficult, but it is nothing like as costly and difficult as shooting badgers. We know that in Wales, where vaccination has been used much more widely—again, let us discount the wilder claims of success and say that that has probably had a 20% to 25% success rate—culling, at best, has had a 4% success rate. If the Minister has other figures and can demonstrate conclusively that the facts are otherwise, I would be very interested to hear them. So far, we seem to be a little short on statistics giving any indication that the policy that we are currently pursuing works. I want a policy that works. Whichever side of this argument we are on, I guess we are all on the side of wildlife and farmers, and everybody in the Chamber wants a policy that works.

The Republic of Ireland has developed what it believes will be an efficacious vaccine. The bottom line is that we are all looking for that, and I want to see us go down that road. Instead of wasting more time, money and effort going down a blind alley—pursuing a policy that does not work, has not worked and will not work—if we put all those resources and all our effort into finding a vaccination that works for cattle and badgers, we can solve the problem. I urge the Minister to take that away and think about it again. I am not saying that he has not thought about this issue—patently he has; he probably goes to sleep at night dreaming about it—but we need a solution that works.

Two things have not been pursued: one is vaccination, which I have mentioned; and the other, which others have mentioned, is proper ecological bio-control of the movement of cattle and of livestock generally. We know that works because we tried it during the last pandemic, so instead of messing around at the margins, let us get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend made my next point for me. I absolutely recognise that there is a discrepancy between those two numbers, but the problem is that we are trying to compare a non-identical set of figures and a non-identical timeline of events leading up to the particular measurement of the figures—I do not think I put that very clearly.

It is misleading to compare the numbers acquired over four years in north Pembrokeshire and south Ceredigion, during a five-year programme that had to be suspended, with a much longer process involving a different set of calculations in England. I myself find it frustrating, but we are not comparing apples with apples when looking at the two systems and processes in those two different areas. Saying, “Here is a solution that works; why don’t the stupid Government use it?” is massively over-simplifying the problem. Again, I do not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but we have known each other a long time, and if there was a solution or a magic pill that he could administer to make this all go away, I suspect that he would have done so by now.

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman’s speech gives rise to two suggestions. One is that he might argue, along with me, that we ought to have a proper evaluation of the pilots in England. The second is that if we want to compare apples with apples, perhaps we need a proper, Government-sponsored vaccination pilot project in England.

[Simon Hart]

I think that you, Mr Paisley, would come after us if we went down the road of discussing the merits of devolution and having a different set of policies in Wales, which I suspect might be the only way to achieve those aims. However, I have no problem with proper evaluation, and I suspect that the Government have none, particularly given the importance of science, of which we are rightly frequently reminded. As the hon. Lady said herself, it is a pilot scheme, and we are fairly early in the lifetime of the project. To come up with figures now that present an absolute position on where we are and where we should go is a little premature—not necessarily that premature, but the moment is not quite with us.

I have two further points. Reference has been made to the Irish comparison. I made some brief inquiries when we went to vote in the Divisions just now. To suggest that the culling in Ireland was a success, but that it has given way to a different regime that is a resounding failure, is again not an absolutely accurate reflection of the position. When herd breakdowns occur in Ireland, as they still do, an epidemiological investigation is held in the area, followed by an absolutely thorough cull. The idea that culling forms no part of the Irish Government’s approach to eradicating bovine TB is a misrepresentation of what is happening.

We have talked about the cost of vaccination. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned a figure of about £672 annually for a vaccine that is irrelevant in dealing with badgers already carrying the disease, making the injection a completely pointless and expensive approach. There is some doubt about the exact number—I have not been able to ascertain it for 2016-17—of infected badgers that have been unnecessarily vaccinated recently.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I was going to return to that matter later, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I can deal with it now. There is a bit of a misconception about what Ireland has done. They have pursued a successful cull strategy, which has significantly reduced the incidence of TB. Having got the badger population down to a lower level, they are now exploring how to deploy vaccination in the way that one should, as an exit strategy from a cull once the population has been reduced and not as an alternative. To make a comparison, had the Labour Government grasped the nettle and acted swiftly, we could have been in a similar situation and had the disease under control by now.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Minister not acknowledge that in their earliest days, the last Labour Government did act by ensuring that they funded, organised and gave the green light to the 10-year study, which attempted to establish a sound scientific base for how to intervene effectively, especially in relation to culling and how to respond to demands for it? Will he not also accept that the lifting of controls with foot and mouth disease in 2001 necessarily had a major impact?

[George Eustice]

Obviously the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak had an impact, but my point is that there was a loss of 10 years when the science had been clear about what was required since the ’70s. It would have been possible to act earlier, although I will return to the science, as a number of Members mentioned it.

Many Members talked about the importance of cattle movement controls, and I completely agree with that. In fact, it is not in doubt; we have a consensus on that. Cattle movement controls are absolutely at the heart of the Government’s strategy, and have been for many years. I simply ask Members to look at the controls we have now. We have annual testing in the high-risk area. We have four-yearly testing staggered in the low-risk area. We have annual testing in the edge area. In hotspots in the edge area, such as Cheshire, we have six-monthly testing, and we are exploring opportunities to expand that methodology. We have contiguous testing in the high-risk area when we have a breakdown and radial testing in the low-risk area when we have a breakdown. We have pre-movement testing before animals can be moved off a holding, and we now have post-movement testing once animals are moved to a holding in the low-risk area.

Last year we consulted on, and have now implemented, a new approach to using the interferon gamma test much more often than before. When the skin test and the surveillance test detect a problem, we are deploying the interferon gamma test much more often, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) highlighted. We have also just implemented an approach of taking a much harsher interpretation of some of the inconclusive tests, as some of the evidence is that an inconclusive test often means a delayed response. We are constantly looking at whether we can refine things. Members should bear in mind that when we do these tests and detect a problem, all those holdings are placed under restriction. I agree that cattle movement controls are a crucial part of the fight against the disease, but I put it to Members that we are doing everything possible that there is to do at the moment. We are already doing what Members are asking us to do, and we have been for some time.

A number of Members raised the issue of vaccination. As I said earlier, we believe that vaccination of badgers could give us an exit strategy from the cull once we have reduced numbers. That is why we continue to spend millions of pounds trying to develop an oral vaccine for badgers, and that work is ongoing. In 2015, we had an edge area vaccination pilot, where six voluntary groups came together to support us in rolling out the trapping and vaccination of badgers in the edge area. As a result of the shortage of vaccine and a request from the World Health Organisation that the vaccine we had be reserved for medical use in humans only, we had to suspend that programme, in common with Wales. We hope to secure new supplies of vaccine and to resume that edge area vaccination project in 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

It was always recognised that the trials did not have controls alongside them in a scientific way. That is why, as I was going to explain, the RBCT trials were carried out.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way, and just for people to be clear, my constituency is Penistone and Stocksbridge, with an s in the middle. That is very important.

The Minister referred to the review by Professor Krebs. If the review was valid, presumably the 10-year trial—the scientific study led by Professor Krebs—was also valid, and its conclusions should have been taken more seriously by the Government.

[George Eustice]

The full benefits of that RBCT trial presented themselves in the years after the report was concluded, as is now widely accepted. The average reduction in incidence, even if we take account of the theory of perturbation, was 16% during the trial, as everybody accepts, but in the 18 months after culling ended in the RBCT, there was a very sharp, 54% reduction in the incidence of the disease. The average across the period was 28.3%, so the evidence was pretty clear that removing and reducing the badger population in a proactive way could contribute meaningfully to this issue.

The issue was looked at again in 2013 by Professor Charles Godfray, who conducted an independent review of all of the science, which brought together leading UK experts. It concluded that TB spreads within and between populations of badgers and cattle, and that the spread from badgers to cattle is an important cause of herd breakdowns in high incidence areas. Policy is based on evidence that has been clear since the 1970s. The latest review conducted by Professor Charles Godfray with leading experts supported that conclusion.

There are issues that we continue to look at. I have an open mind to additional approaches that can help us bear down on the disease. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the importance of biosecurity. I agree with him. In fact, a couple of months ago I launched the cattle herd certification standards scheme, an accreditation scheme where we try to incentivise farmers to sign up to high levels of biosecurity. We are now looking at new ways in which we might incentivise them to do that and to put more emphasis on that.

Some hon. Members mentioned the handling of farmyard manure. We know that the disease bacterium can spread through farmyard manure and through latrines via badgers. That is recognised and not disputed. We already have many restrictions in place on when farmyard manure from infected herds can be spread and where it can be spread. I constantly keep such issues under review, and in recent months I have asked our policy team to look again at whether there is anything further we can do. We are continually looking at whether we can strengthen and improve genetic resistance to the disease.

The Holstein UK society is doing very important work to try to breed resistance to TB into the dairy herd. We support that and stand ready to assist if required. There is also some novel research going on, very much in the early stages, into whether we could develop a self-disseminating vaccine for badgers. That would mean using something like a herpes virus. The vaccine would be inserted and would spread naturally through a badger population. If we could perfect something like that, it would be a major breakthrough, although we are some way off.

[Angela Smith]

What we are hearing is all very welcome news indeed. I am pleased to have it on the record, but it would be good to have an answer to the key question: when will we get publication of an independent evaluation of the pilot culls?

[George Eustice]

I was moving on to that. Data on bovine TV incidence in the cull areas are published annually. Because of the low prevalence rate, we need aggregate data over a year. We have already published the first two years. The third one will be published in August, so we are already publishing the data on disease incidence in the two cull areas.

I want to move on and cover some of the other points that were raised. The hon. Member for Newport West raised the issue of the Kimblewick hunt and dogs. Our veterinary advice is clear that dogs are not a major contributor to the spread of the disease. The incidence of TB in dogs is very rare. We occasionally get incidents, as we do with cats. Three years ago we had an outbreak of TB in cats in a particular area, but the veterinary advice is clear: it is not a key contributor. In the case of the Kimblewick hunt, an epidemiological investigation is under way. Until it is completed, it would be wrong to speculate on what the origin or route of the disease was. On the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of stopping hunting, although I understand that he has a wider objective to do that, it would not be a proportionate step, based on the risk that we have.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised the issue of the independent expert panel. It was only ever intended that that would be for the first year to review data. It was never intended that it would report each and every year. She asked about evaluation. I have been clear that the evaluation is ongoing. We have already published the first two years and the third will be published in August. She mentioned the need to reduce the population by at least 70% within six weeks. I will simply point out that the RBCT never estimated its badger population at the start. It retrospectively guessed how many it thought it had reduced, so there is a danger of having false precision around some of the figures.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I am afraid I have given way generously. I will press on because I believe we may have a Division shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds asked what happens after the current culls have ended their four years. As was pointed out by the shadow Minister, in the two cull areas that have concluded four years, we will—

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The complexity and bureaucracy associated with the CAP cost the industry £5 million a year and 300,000 man hours, so reducing burdens will help our farmers to grow more, sell more and export more of our great British food.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The strength of the farming sector will depend on whether it has an adequate supply of labour. Earlier the Minister of State suggested that there was not yet a problem here, but we know that workers from the European Union are already reluctant to come to the UK to work, so when is the Secretary of State going to make it clear that we are going to have a seasonal agricultural workers scheme? What is the timeline?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady is not correct when she says that people are reluctant to come here. In fact, the Office for National Statistics figures for last year show that there were more migrant workers coming from the EU than ever before, so that is just not true. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has pointed out, free movement will continue until the point at which we leave the EU. We are working closely with the Home Office to assess, understand and put in place good systems to ensure that we continue to thrive in this important sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the UK has taken a leading role in the work on antibiotic resistance, which we have pushed on to the agenda of the OECD, the G7 and the G20. We can adopt processes to reduce our reliance on antibiotics—for example, through the acidification of water in the pig sector. We can always do better, but some of these critical antibiotics have a role in agriculture, too.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T3. The partial liberalisation of the water market starts in April this year, with further phases of liberalisation being planned, yet we have seen nothing of the abstraction reform legislation, which is essential if this liberalisation is to work. When will the Secretary of State publish the Bill?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

We take the preservation and the use of water very seriously. The opening up of the market for small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses is a good advance, but I am looking at those other matters carefully.

Future Flood Prevention

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

My interest in the issue of flooding started in 2007, when south Yorkshire was badly flooded. Of course, those events led to the Pitt review, which recommended better and more co-ordinated planning, improved resilience and more strategic planning decisions by local authorities with regard to water and its potential impacts. However, weaknesses have materialised in the delivery of the Pitt review and, on top of that, the flooding challenges remain.

Peak river flows could be more than twice their current levels in some English regions by 2070, and some 5 million people in England alone are at risk of flooding. The national flood resilience review established, through Met Office modelling, that it is plausible that over the next 10 years we could experience rainfall that is between 20% and 30% higher than usual. It was always likely, therefore, that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, would return to this all-important topic. That decision was accelerated by the 2015-16 floods, which impacted so badly on Cumbria, Yorkshire and Somerset. The need to look again at the issue became imperative, especially in the context of the Government’s own flood resilience review.

I want to focus on one particular aspect of the Committee’s recommendations, namely the strategic approach that this country needs to take to flood risk management, with a special focus on the need for catchment-scale planning.

I was a member of the delegation that visited Holland, which was critical to framing the Committee’s recommendations. Our report focused heavily on that fact-finding visit, and every member was impressed by the rigorous approach taken by the Dutch to risk management. The Dutch system is clear and accountable—locally, regionally and nationally—and I am mightily disappointed that the Government were so quick to dismiss our recommendations, especially given the evidence we received that too much of what we do in England remains badly disjointed.

The Dutch model is particularly impressive in placing water at the heart of the country’s approach not just to water supply, but to strategic, spatial and economic planning. In other words, in Holland water—its management, its uses and its maintenance as an essential environmental resource—is seen as a No. 1 priority in the country, and so it should be in the UK. A start would be to have more of a catchment-scale approach to planning for flood risk management. That would involve integrating the widest possible range of both hard and soft engineering measures, including natural flood management.

Evidence presented to the Committee underlined that point. Some witnesses considered that the Environment Agency relied too much on constructing defences at the point of flood impacts on town centres, and did not give adequate consideration to preventing flood waters from building up at source and along the river path. The Government’s own advisory bodies, the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change and Natural England, told the Committee that downstream flood prevention and resilience measures must be accompanied by action upstream.

All the evidence is that the Government are not taking sufficiently seriously the need to consider larger, catchment-scale investment. For instance, their flood resilience review encourages bids for its core cities pilot, which refers principally to

“financing flood resilience in urban areas, harnessing private investment to design new defences while delivering economic development and regeneration for the local area.”

There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the need for a catchment-scale response.

In that context, Sheffield is developing its own scheme. Although it is worthy in some respects, it nevertheless fails to provide a robust mix of hard and soft measures. For instance, it provides no evidence of how it will make its water storage proposals work, and it provides no evidence that landowners will co-operate with it. References to natural flood management measures, such as tree planting and catchment restoration at source, are perfunctory. More than anything else, there is nothing in the scheme that would cover Barnsley, Doncaster or Rotherham, so it is not a catchment-scale scheme. If we do not stop or slow the flow in Barnsley, what is the point of putting in place measures in Sheffield, because all we will do is push the water further downstream to Doncaster? The Don is the spine of the South Yorkshire water network and it would be ideal for a catchment-level response.

I will conclude by making the point that I do not blame Sheffield for the approach it has taken. It has been encouraged to take such an approach by the Government, who seem more interested in leveraging in private finance for the purpose of delivering traditional, narrowly focused flood risk management schemes and in finding other pots of money than in taking the holistic view emerging from all the evidence presented to us on the Select Committee. I call on the Government to think again, and to support our recommendation on the need for large catchment-scale schemes that would go with the grain of all the emerging evidence.

I would have liked to talk about other aspects of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, such as resilience and the role of sustainable urban drainage systems in managing flood risk, but time is very limited. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that she and the Government will think again about the need to consider proper catchment-scale responses to this issue and the need for a more integrated approach to flood management in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady speaks with passion on this matter because it has affected properties in her constituency. I stress to her and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that the Environment Agency does work with local councils. The guidance for new developments in the national planning policy framework is clear. Not only has the Environment Agency’s advice been accepted in 98% of applications, but there is a clear duty to consider the risk to existing housing stock. I am aware of the specific situation to which the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) refers, and I have passed it on to the Department for Communities and Local Government so that it can consider how to make things clear both in planning permission and in planning enforcement.

[Angela Smith]

I am pleased to hear about those representations to the DCLG. Will the Minister also make representations about making the use of sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments?

[Dr Coffey]

Councils are expected to do that for developments of 10 homes or more, and I hope that the hon. Lady will see progress in her local area. She referred to the situation in Sheffield earlier, and I can assure her that that was not what I heard when I met businesses and people to talk about the potential future scheme in Sheffield. However, one outcome of the national flood resilience review is that we want Sheffield to be a pioneer in how we bring in private investment.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Dr Coffey]

I will not give way because I need to make progress and to discuss other important matters to which other hon. Members referred.

Returning to funding and the estimates, this Government continue to play a key role in improving the protection of those at risk of flood. The historic £2.5 billion over six years to better protect more than 300,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion is an important increase. A key change is that, instead of the annual budget and the hand-to-mouth existence whereby the Environment Agency was not sure whether a project would be finished, a long-term approach to spending allows the Environment Agency to do the appropriate planning and get on with work instead of guessing how long something will take. We have also increased maintenance spending in real terms over this Parliament to over £1 billion.

The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred to partnership funding. I want to point out that it used to be that a scheme would either get all the funding or nothing. There was no way for a wider range of schemes to be covered. I recognise what she said about the extent of other public sector sources of money, but it matters that LEPs can and have made bids in order to increase economic development and are able to partner that funding. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) said and I will follow up on the issue he raised.

I welcome the support for the use of natural flood risk management and the catchment-based approach that we are developing to prevent floods or to mitigate them where they do occur. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton welcomed the fact that we are introducing a new reporting measure on natural flood management in future spending years from 2018-19. We have allocated a further £15 million specifically for natural flood management schemes. I have not yet seen the candidates for those schemes, but the Environment Agency is working them up and I am aware of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s recommendation of one catchment scale to test out the principles. That approach is already being used in some flood prevention schemes, but it is right to have appropriate criteria for measuring.

On planning for future resilience, the hon. Member for Wakefield referred to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report and the House should be aware that we are now better prepared to deal with such issues. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that I am unable to change the weather—I am certainly not divine in that regard—but we are working hard to ensure that the lessons of previous floods feed into the national flood resilience review. I have chaired weekly meetings, which have only just finished, to get progress updates on what is happening with the different infrastructure providers. We have also re-established the inter-ministerial group on flooding, which meets quarterly for a broader response to flood prevention.

We have allowed the Environment Agency to invest in mobile flood defences. It now has 25 miles of temporary defences and half a million sandbags located across seven key areas, and it can deploy them flexibly around the country. The Army has also been made available. Troops were deployed in Lincolnshire and Norfolk at the request of the local resilience forums, but Suffolk and Essex decided that they did not need the help of the armed forces in the recent coastal surge. Overall, the country will be better protected and services for our communities will be more resilient to flooding. Over the next year, we intend to focus on surface water, which is a significant source of flooding, particularly in cities and urban areas. Again, that will involve collaboration between the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, the water sector, and other stakeholders with an interest in managing the risk.

On working together, we all recognise that flooding affects many aspects of our lives. We carefully considered the report’s recommendations on structures, but we do not agree that there is a need for substantial change—that does not mean to say that there are no ways to make it work even better. The local flood risk management action plan, which the Government published on 24 January, is a good example, and it aims to promote best practice and enable all lead local flood authorities to carry out their responsibilities as effectively and efficiently as possible. Eight councils have not started their plan, and I have written to them indicating that, if some action is not undertaken by the end of March, we will use our powers to get the plans going for them.

We should recognise that the current system means that, since 2005—stretching back into the last Labour Government—more than 500,000 properties are better defended today. I want to get it across that, right now, structural change would get in the way of delivering the flood prevention, resilience and other measures that will be undertaken over the next few years. Again, I am not convinced that just changing the name of who does what will improve the way that different bodies work together.

On the fire services, to which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred, I can reaffirm that the Government have no plans for a statutory duty to deal with flooding. Fire services already respond to flooding as part of their general duties under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and in response to the risks set out in their integrated risk management plans. I pay tribute to those fire authorities that moved around the country following the recent coastal surge. It was well done, and in particular I saw the firefighters from Hampshire who came up to help Suffolk and Norfolk. That shows that the system is working well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As the Secretary of State said earlier, we have now paid 92.8% of basic payment scheme claims for the current year. As a fellow Cornishman, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 97% of claims in Cornwall have now been paid.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in the country will be concerned that their interests should not be compromised in any free trade deal with New Zealand. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that she will fight for farmers in any free trade deal and ensure that they are not put out of the market because of cheap imports of New Zealand lamb? Will she fight for farmers in the post-Brexit world?

[Andrea Leadsom]

It will be for us, as a free and sovereign Parliament, to determine the terms of any free trade agreements. I have already read out our manifesto commitment on the highest levels of animal welfare. Our manifesto also commits to food safety and traceability. In our ambition to be a world-leading food and farming sector, we intend to promote those commitments around the world.