Flooding

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The Royal Engineers are involved, and they have been involved in both Cumbria and Yorkshire, looking at finding possible solutions for those bridges.

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

In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to the national flood resilience review that she has commissioned to ensure that the country can deal with increasingly extreme weather events. However, she did not respond to a request from the shadow Secretary of State to ensure that such a review should be independent. I ask her to respond to that request now because we need to underpin the integrity of this very important review by making sure that it is indeed independent and robust in its recommendations.

[Elizabeth Truss]

What we are doing through this review is involving key bodies such as the Adaptation Sub-Committee and the Natural Capital Committee and ensuring that all the findings are open and transparent. One of the key aspects of the review is looking at how Government systems work effectively, and we need to share such information more widely with the public. That does not require an independent review; it requires openness and transparency, to which I am committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I was in China a few weeks ago, and one of the things we promoted was Greene King in Chongqing. We were accompanied on our visit by the biggest ever delegation of food companies—there were more than 80 companies with us. With the launch of the Great British food unit, which brings together UKTI and DEFRA expertise, I expect us to have even more in the future.

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

Value for money and efficiency in delivering help is important, but the Government also need to be flexible enough to respond to unforeseen events. Will the Secretary of State look urgently at helping the farmers severely hit by the recent flooding, by making at least partial payments from the basic payment scheme?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I met farmers in Cumbria earlier this week. We are identifying the 600 farmers and making sure that we get the basic payments out to them as soon as possible. We have also put in place a farming recovery fund, to which farmers will be able to apply from tomorrow, to give them the extra funding needed to get their farms back to normal.

Exotic Pets Trade

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

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

As always, Mr Owen, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. May I apologise in advance for being slightly under the weather and say that I might not be as energetic or as enthusiastic as normal?

I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) on securing the debate. His knowledge of the topic is impressive and he gave us a tour de force this morning. He set out clearly the scale and nature of the trade in exotic pets. As he pointed out, more than 1,000 species of animal are involved in the pet trade, with the evidence suggesting that more than 50% of pet shops sell exotic species of some sort, with 25% selling exotic amphibians, 25% selling exotic birds, mainly parrots, and 17% selling exotic mammals, such as raccoons and hedgehogs, as has been pointed out. Even worse, some 42% of pet shops sell exotic reptiles such as alligators, cobras, chameleons or endangered tortoises. It is also estimated, however, that a staggering 20% of calls to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals about reptiles are made because they are no longer wanted by their owner.

I want to provide some local context. In South Yorkshire we have 66 licensed pet shops. Recent research by Blue Cross and the Born Free Foundation shows that 25% of them sell reptiles of some sort, with many not even displaying information on what kind is being sold—which underlines perfectly the point made earlier. That is an important point, because if a shop does not know the species, it will not know how the pet should be looked after and will certainly not be able to tell the customer how to care for it.

Thirty per cent of pet shops in South Yorkshire also sell exotic birds, usually labelled simply as “parrots”. Even worse, one in five of the shops in South Yorkshire sells exotic mammals of some sort, with one even selling meerkats. Under no circumstances should meerkats ever be kept as pets, but that example typifies one of the major drivers at play in the trade, which is the role of fad and fashion in governing the decision to buy. To be frank, those individuals who want a meerkat should stick to collecting the stuffed toys on offer from Compare The Market and steer clear of the real thing.

What, in turn, drives buyers’ trends in the pet market? I suggest that one of the drivers is that people far too often see exotics as cute and cuddly. Most people, however, do not have the knowledge of the specialist requirements attached to looking after such animals, and the animals suffer as a result.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

Does the hon. Lady agree that any revised legislative framework should place responsibility not only on people selling pets, but on people buying them? People should be responsible enough to find out what an animal needs before they take it on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point, and I will say something about the role of education later in my speech.

We need to remember that many animals could be suffering from the trade, far more than we estimate. We are uncertain about the scale of the trade, so it is not even easy to estimate the degree of the problem.

Another concern highlighted by research is how little some local authorities are aware of the issue. One authority in South Yorkshire stated that it had no pet shops licensed to sell exotics, yet Blue Cross and Born Free found at least three pet shops in its area selling exotic birds, amphibians and reptiles. Under-resourced local authorities clearly face a considerable challenge when enforcing legislation on exotic pets.

Licensed pet shops are only the tip of the iceberg—a point powerfully made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk. In South Yorkshire, as in other areas, the online trade is the growing forum for selling a wide variety of exotic pets, often unlicensed and illegally. For example, one advertisement was seen to be selling cornflakes. [Interruption.] I mean corn snakes—sorry, I said I wasn’t feeling well. Other ads were for royal pythons and, believe it or not, for a marmoset. Perhaps most shockingly, one advert in South Yorkshire was offering for sale two African grey parrots, exotic birds from the Congo region of central Africa that are designated as vulnerable by the IUCN—the International Union for Conservation of Nature—and should only be kept in captivity by experts and never as pets.

This debate is important and highlights an important and growing issue. If the Minister could address a few points in his response, that would be appreciated. First, does he agree that the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 should be extended to cover pet shops? A seller of an exotic animal needing a licence would then have to state such a requirement to any buyer. Secondly, will he consider—this is the principal point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk—conducting a full review of the exotic pet trade, similar to the one promised by the Scottish Government? I know that a general review of animal licensing is on the way, but I wonder whether it is worth separating out the issue of exotic pets for special attention. Furthermore, does the Minister agree, thirdly, that part of that full review should consider the outdated Pet Animals Act 1951?

Fourthly, as I have highlighted, local authorities do not have the time, resources or guidance necessary to curb the sale of exotic animals. This is a problem that goes all the way across the licensing of animals for breeding and sale, including dogs and cats. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that local authorities should be given the resources to properly license and inspect pet shops to ensure compliance with existing legislation? Fifthly, does he agree—this is another point made earlier—that more needs to be done to educate the public about the husbandry needs of such animals, which can be difficult and expensive to satisfy in a home environment?

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On more being done to educate wider society, does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem is the novelty factor, which parents often inculcate in their children? They do not want to have just a goldfish, dog or cat; they want an increasingly outrageously exotic animal as a pet, which might be discarded in a matter of weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

I totally agree, and that is the point I made about the role of fad and fashion. I made the point about meerkats and tried to deal with it light-heartedly, but it is a serious point. Meerkats are not cuddly animals that can be kept easily in a home environment, but we see a growing trend for that kind of pet ownership, which is totally unacceptable. On a personal level—this is not a party political line—I think it is unacceptable that a wide range of exotic animals sold in pet shops should be sold to be kept in domestic environments. I do not understand why anyone would want to keep a pet snake or a pet spider.

[Rebecca Pow]

I want to back up what the hon. Lady is saying. Something like half of all pets sold through pet shops are venomous snakes, alligators and crocodiles. That is frightening, so I urge the Minister to look at the law.

[Angela Smith]

I totally agree. I am pleased that a review of legislation on the licensing of the breeding and sale of animals is on the way, but that aspect of the trade needs to be looked at carefully. Public safety ramifications that go beyond the Animal Welfare Act need to be looked at as well and given a bit of separate attention.

Pets are not a fashion accessory and should not be exposed to the throwaway culture of modern fashion. Some animals should not be kept as pets at all. Blue Cross and Born Free, in their “One Click Away” campaign, want to see a ban on keeping primates as pets. This is a bit of an old chestnut, but does the Minister agree that primates should not be kept as household pets?

Pet shops sell exotic animals to meet a demand and because of the high profits to be had by so doing. There is nothing wrong with making money, but we must be careful and make sure that animal welfare is not compromised in the process of making a living. In many cases, animals may not be dangerous or endangered. It is not illegal to own exotic pets, but even if it is not illegal, in some cases the trade drives habitat destruction and the extinction of animals in the wild. That cannot be right or good for the species involved, nor is it possible to meet the welfare needs of exotic pets in a domestic environment.

I thank Blue Cross and Born Free for their campaigning work, which has been invaluable and should be commended. I for one appreciate all they do in highlighting this and many other animal welfare issues. I know that the Minister is a reasonable man and he is very competent, so I look forward to a full and thorough response to the points raised in the debate.

Flooding

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

May I put on the record my heartfelt sympathies for the people of Cumbria and elsewhere, and for the friends and families of all those who died as a result of the weekend’s events? My constituency was badly flooded in 2007, and one has to live through such an event to be able to understand the devastation it visits on communities and families alike. The Secretary of State has made a great deal of play of the real terms increase in flood maintenance spending, but can she reassure the House that the flood maintenance budget has adequate funding to start with and that the Environment Agency is adequately funded to discharge its role in relation to flood prevention and flood response?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I know the hon. Lady has a lot of experience in this area. I have had such a discussion with the Environment Agency, and the budget is effective for the level of our plans at the moment. As I have mentioned, we saw an extreme weather event with the incidents in Cumbria, so although the flood defences in Cumbria delayed the impact, giving the emergency services an opportunity to operate and to evacuate people, and also reduced the impact, we clearly need to look at that area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are taking positive steps. We want to put our woodland in trust for the nation. I have just announced an extension to the Yorkshire Dales national park and the Lake District national park that will create the largest area of almost continuous national park in our country. We are building up Kew as a fantastic organisation and using our expertise to benefit countries around the world. I am incredibly proud of what we are doing in this area, and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would take more pride in it as well.

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

The Secretary of State said a moment ago that ancient woodland needed to be properly protected in the planning system, but it is the clear view of the Woodland Trust that the planning protections that are in place are not good enough. What representations will she make to the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that planning protection for ancient woodland is improved and made robust?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I think we have excellent protection for ancient woodland in our planning system.

[Angela Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Elizabeth Truss]

We absolutely do. What is more, we have just launched our 25-year plan for the environment. We are looking at natural capital and at the value of woodland. We also want to ensure that trees are planted in the right place, because where we plant them makes a tremendous difference. We must ensure that we build for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I regularly discuss this issue with Northern Ireland. It is trialling an alternative approach called “test and vaccinate or remove”, whereby badgers that are not believed to have the disease are vaccinated and those that are believed to have it are culled. There are limitations on that because of the limitations of the diagnostic tests. However, we liaise closely with all the relevant devolved Administrations.

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

In a written parliamentary answer that was published on Monday, the Minister stated:

“Natural England has authorised badger culling in Dorset this year in addition to Somerset and Gloucestershire.”

Will he explain to the House whether the new Dorset culling area is part of a roll-out of culling or another pilot area? If Dorset constitutes the start of a national roll-out, how can that be justified on the performance of the pilot culls? If it is another pilot area, what monitoring and evaluation will be put in place by his Department?

[George Eustice]

The extension to Dorset, as I explained earlier, is part of a cautious roll-out of the policy. We piloted the culls in the first year in Somerset and Gloucestershire. Our experience last year demonstrated that a cull along the lines that we are pursuing could be successful. It was successful and that is why we are continuing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

We on this side of the House are confident that we would win a vote to prevent the repeal of the Hunting Act, but it is clear from the Minister’s answer that no plan is in place for a vote. On that basis, and given that 80% of voters support the ban on hunting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) pointed out, why does not the Secretary of State just drop the idea and get on with the job of making sure the legislation is enforced?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am a bit surprised to hear the hon. Lady talk about her side of the House, given that this has always been a free vote matter that is up to the conscience of individual Members. I have made it very clear that I support repeal of the Hunting Act and would vote on that basis, but I recognise that Members need to make their own decisions on the issue, so I am surprised to hear that the vote would be whipped by the Labour party.

Food Waste

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on her re-election and on increasing her share of the vote. She has been, and I have no doubt that she will continue to be, an excellent representative for the people of Bristol and a champion for that great city. I congratulate her on securing this debate on the important subject of food waste. Her commitment to the environment is well known, and she has regularly championed in Parliament the need to tackle food waste. During the previous Parliament, she introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that highlighted this important issue.

I also welcome the Minister to his new role, and I congratulate him on his appointment. There have been a few changes at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Dan Rogerson lost his seat, and, as I understand it, the noble Lord de Mauley stepped down. I wish them both all the best in the future roles that they choose to pursue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East spoke with her usual passion on a subject about which she clearly feels deeply. Food waste is relevant to us all, as has been clearly illustrated by the contributions to this debate. We are probably all guilty, at one point or another, of not using food as efficiently as we should or, to put it another way, of not valuing food as much as we should. I was brought up by a mother who always said to me when I wasted food, “You would not have been so wasteful during the war.” That lesson remains with me to this day. I compost and do all the things that one should do to try to minimise food waste.

None of us should be surprised that the scale of the problem is very large, but it is only part of the much wider problem of a rising population and the need to increase the supply of affordable food in a world affected by climate change and water stress—which, of course, makes it difficult to secure the food supply, to say the least. Many of us believe that we will need to grow our food more efficiently in future, with less waste and less damage to the environment, and that there will be serious consequences if we do not. As always, it will be the poorest who suffer the most if we do not address these issues.

In the UK alone, according to House of Commons Library figures, some 15 million tonnes of food is either sent for landfill or incinerated annually. It is estimated that the economic cost to households and businesses of throwing away food is some £12 billion a year, or around £480 per household. However, although the economic costs are great, the real cost of that waste is environmental or, as the noble Lord Cameron once described it, a disaster for climate change.

In the USA, for instance, it is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil a year are used to produce food that is thrown away. In the UK, it is estimated that food waste is responsible for 20 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year, or about 3% of the country’s total emissions. That figure is equivalent to the emissions produced by 20% of the country’s car usage or, to put it another way, the amount of carbon produced by some 7 million cars. Additionally, it is estimated that 70% of all water consumption is used in food production, which means that in the UK alone some 5 million cubic metres of water a year is used in producing foodstuffs, a proportion of which is wasted unnecessarily. It is therefore clear and well understood that producing food for human consumption that is then not consumed is not only costly to business and households but environmentally damaging.

The importance of food waste was recognised by the last Labour Government, who established the Waste and Resources Action Programme. One of the programme’s outcomes was the Courtauld commitment, a voluntary agreement with industry that, in phases, aimed to improve efficiency and reduce waste in the groceries sector. That approach led to successes and to reductions in waste. For example, 1.2 million tonnes of food and packaging waste was saved in phase 1 of the commitment by using new solutions and technologies. That alone is estimated to have saved £1.8 billion and cut 3.3 million tonnes of carbon emissions between 2005 and 2009. During phase 2 there was a further reduction of 1.7 million tonnes of waste, with a monetary saving of £3.1 billion, by using such initiatives as the resealable fridge pack, which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) mentioned, or by increasing the shelf life of products by improving delivery and storage.

It was recognised, however, that we needed to place this important issue on a more strategic footing and to address the wider issues of food sustainability and security, so we came up with our Food 2030 strategy. The vision established by that strategy was that, by 2030, the UK would have a low carbon food system that is efficient with resources, with any waste being reused, recycled or used for energy generation. The strategy clearly set out the actions needed to reduce food waste in the supply chain and at home, and it focused on what could be done by the Government and local authorities, households and consumers, the food industry and, finally, the Government and the food industry working together.

The strategy set clear goals for 2030: reducing food waste as far as possible; addressing waste in developing countries; and valuing surplus food. On that final goal, the strategy coupled the recycling of waste food with the need to share or redistribute food to vulnerable people. That goal is now more urgent following the rapid rise in the use of food banks in the UK over the past five years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East mentioned in her comments about FareShare.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) talked at length about Company Shop, which is headquartered in my constituency. It is a local business, and last week it received the Queen’s award for enterprise. The community shop aspect of Company Shop’s work is a relatively new innovation. Company Shop’s main business is providing surplus food from a number of supermarkets to employees working in food manufacturing and the emergency services—it is a restricted clientele. Broadly, it recycles food that would otherwise have gone to waste. Community shops are a welcome new initiative that couple access to cheap, good quality food, on the same principle as Company Shop, with positive help to get people back into work and back on their feet. I welcome that initiative, and I have visited Company Shop, which I wish all the best.

It saddens me to say that, in 2010, the incoming coalition Government decided, for whatever reason, to abandon Food 2030, effectively leaving the UK without an overall strategy to address supply, security and waste in the food industry. Not only that, but recent successes were threatened when WRAP’s funding was cut by £10 million. No wonder that, in a letter to members of the waste and resources industry, the previous Minister, Dan Rogerson, let it slip that the Government had “stepped back” from that policy area. Stepping back is not good enough, especially in the context of the huge strategic challenges that we face and the worrying increase in the number of UK citizens resorting to food banks in recent years to feed themselves and their families.

We recently heard that the Government have yet again made a partial U-turn. This time they acknowledged the need for a food strategy by announcing a 25-year plan for food and farming, which we welcome. If the Conservative manifesto is anything to go by, however, the plan might be narrowly focused and will not address the bigger issues in the same way that our Food 2030 plan clearly did. The Conservative manifesto made no mention of waste, so we now need a proper, thorough review of waste policy.

I conclude with the following questions for the Minister. What will the Government’s plan for food and farming encompass, and what progress has been made on setting it up? When might we see more details of that plan? Is he confident that the recent improvements in cutting food waste will not be lost due to the cuts his Government have made to WRAP? Moreover, are there any further plans to cut the WRAP budget?

Of course, as supply chains become longer, cutting waste successfully becomes a transnational issue that will require co-operation with trading parties, especially our European partners in the EU. At a time of great uncertainty over this country’s status in the European Union, can the Minister confirm that he will not allow any trans-European commitments to be negotiated away, and that he will continue the work started by the last Labour Government to reduce waste in food supply chains across Europe?

Seven senior waste industry, recycling and infrastructure bodies have written to the Minister, calling for a meeting to discuss future policy direction on waste. Their view is that clarity on the issue is needed from the Government. Is the Minister willing to provide that clarity? This debate is a great opportunity to do so. Will his Government make a rigorous and transparent commitment to tackling waste issues strategically and effectively?

Food waste is serious. It demonstrates market failure in the gravest of ways, it costs everyone in the country a great deal of money and it is doing immense damage to the environment. Unfortunately, this Government do not see it as a priority, and that needs to change. Food waste is a scandal. When people find it hard to access cheap, nutritious food, it is immoral for so much of this essential of life to be thrown away. That needs to change. I look forward to the Minister's answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

I am listening with great interest to the Minister. He is coming remarkably close to endorsing Food 2030. May I ask once again, what is the Government’s strategic plan on food and farming, and when will we hear more detail about it?

[Rory Stewart]

The answer is that I am going to evade that question. We do not yet have that plan, and I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Lady a deadline on it, but I promise her that we are thinking hard about the subject. I am happy to sit down with her and talk about where we have got to with that thought and take on any suggestions that she has.

Food to the value of £108 billion and the one in eight jobs connected to food and farming in the UK are connected to what every hon. Member in this Chamber deeply believes in, whether it be poverty alleviation, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys; the legislative programmes advocated by the hon. Member for Bristol East; the important arguments on the environment and resource depletion advanced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; or the civil society examples from Zero Waste Scotland produced by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West.[Official Report, 15 June 2015, Vol. 597, c. 1-MC.]

I want to end with a huge invitation. I do not see why this need be a party political issue. There is obviously an enormous amount of knowledge in this room and I should be delighted to sit down with anybody who has good ideas about what we could do to tackle something that matters deeply to British citizens, the food industry and the packaging industry, and which matters deeply in respect of the resources on which our biosphere depends.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered tackling food waste.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

The Government keep on saying that there is no alternative to badger culling, yet the trials in Wales based on stringent cattle measures combined with vaccination show that there is a viable alternative to the Government’s mass slaughter of badgers. However, Ministers are obviously allergic to science-based policy and deaf to alternative approaches. Will there be an announcement on the further roll-out of the mass culling of badgers before the Dissolution of Parliament? The country needs to know.

[George Eustice]

I think the hon. Lady is reading too much into what has happened in Wales. The vaccinated area is a little more than 1.5% of the total area. There has been a reduction in the incidence of TB, as there has been in the UK, predominantly through the introduction of cattle movement controls. We have always been very clear that there is no example anywhere in the world of a country that has tackled TB without also dealing with the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. We will stick to our 25-year strategy.

Kew Gardens

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I start with the usual courtesies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. You were a Minister who had responsibility for Kew in his time in government, so this debate will no doubt be of keen interest to you.

I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). He has shadow ministerial responsibility for this brief, but he is indisposed, so I am standing in on his behalf. I wish him well for a speedy recovery. Finally, I of course congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate, which has turned out to be incredibly effective. If it has served any purpose, it seems to have triggered, along with the e-petition, the decision to announce a further tranche of funding for Kew gardens. His contribution was passionate. He led the debate off with an excellent set of remarks that underlined the key point, which is the need for stability in Kew’s funding.

Kew remains one of the leading botanic gardens of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, it is important not only to London, but to the whole of the UK and the world. It makes an essential contribution to our understanding of the world’s flora and to the conservation of plant and fungal biodiversity. It is clear that Kew’s committed team of scientists are highly valued internationally. Indeed, one could argue that it is difficult to overestimate the value of their contribution to plant science. They thoroughly deserve their reputation for world-leading research and for their essential conservation and curation work. In 2012, Kew was judged to be

“well placed to continue to make a significant and globally important contribution”

by the independent review panel chaired by Professor Georgina Mace. That review considered the position of Kew in 2010 and 2011. After a decade of investment from a Labour Government who understood the value of sound science, Kew was well placed to manage a slight real terms cut in its operational budget. That is where we were four years ago.

Today we have Richard Deverell, Kew’s director, warning of possible bankruptcy and a £5.5 million shortfall in Kew’s operational budget. I will refer to today’s announcement later in my remarks, because it alters things slightly. There is a stark difference between where we were and where we are, but that is what happens when we have a Tory-led Government who believe that protecting the environment holds back the economy. They seem to believe that we have to make a choice about whether we protect our economy or our natural environment.

Will the Minister clarify the evidence behind his Government’s approach to Kew, notwithstanding today’s announcement? Does he believe that Kew will be able to increase significantly its level of external funding, which seems to be the long-term plan, including for its core work? If so, why does he believe that and how will it be done? If not, he should be clear about the reasoning behind the Government’s initial decision to degrade the UK’s natural science capacity. The independent committee’s report contained a clear warning that

“Kew must guard against the risk that the allocation of its core funding is distorted by the need to chase external money.”

There is real concern that, in a context of declining resources for animal and plant science, Britain will not be able to deal with potential risks or new outbreaks of plant disease. I refer specifically to the recent outbreaks of ash dieback and oak processionary moth. Earlier this year, the Natural Capital Committee said that the incidence of disease has accelerated over the past 50 years. It also said that the current outbreak of ash dieback is expected to destroy all but a very small percentage of the total population of ash trees in Great Britain. Every time I go out walking in my constituency, I think about that and the difference that it could make to our landscapes and precious woodlands. With such a host of new pests and diseases attacking the United Kingdom’s native treescape, Kew’s scientists are more important than ever.

Climate change and the increasing presence of pests and diseases are placing additional stresses on our natural environment. We do not know exactly what impact they will have, but we must prepare properly for the increasing risks, and we simply cannot do that without Kew. Those who have a long-standing interest in the natural environment, as I do, will be asking why we are forced time and again to make basic arguments in favour of maintaining the levels of investment in environmental science. The Government clearly just do not get it, so it is worth rehearsing some of the basic points.

As many Members have said, Kew is a leader in plant conservation. It plays a major role in global assessments for the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list. The millennium seed bank supports the long-term conservation of wild species and the use of seed for innovation and adaptation in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and habitat restoration. Kew has a long tradition of global leadership and influence in plant discovery and description and in pure and applied research.

The Government’s failure to appreciate the value of Kew is one of the clearest signs that they do not take the environment seriously. Despite the sensible recommendations of the 2010 Chalmers independent review of Kew and the 2012 independent science review, Kew has been left on an unsustainable footing. That key point has been raised in, and crystallised by, today’s debate—the instability that Kew faces in the long term. It was illustrated perfectly by the hon. Member for Richmond Park and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.

Today the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy Prime Minister announced that an extra £2.3 million of Government funding has been secured through to April 2016. The right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) made the point that Kew should perhaps be funded by the Treasury, but some of us might argue that it already is effectively being funded by the Treasury, because this is the second time that the Treasury has bailed Kew out. That leads, however, to a few questions. Is the money additional grant funding or has it been moved from another part of DEFRA’s budget? If so, which programme is the money being transferred from? Does the £2.3 million include expected efficiency savings either from Kew or from elsewhere? Is the £2.3 million for operational or capital budget purposes? Will Kew receive all the £2.3 million in 2015-16?

The key point is that the announcement today—let’s face it, our Deputy Prime Minister is quite good at these kinds of announcements—does not negate the hand-to-mouth feel of the Government’s approach, which is one of the key reasons why the Science and Technology Committee is conducting an inquiry into the issue. I hope the Government will do more than just pay lip service to the Science and Technology Committee and its deliberations, because the £2.3 million does not deal with the issue, as Members here today have said repeatedly. As John Wood from the department of plant sciences at the university of Oxford said in his submission to that inquiry:

“The lack of core funding is forcing Kew to abandon its traditional roles and research and instead head in the direction of research to which it is not suited. Much will be lost if this process continues.”

Today’s announcement does not deal with that fundamental point.

Environmental science should be a priority of the Government’s, but it could not be further down their list of priorities. Just look at the Environmental Audit Committee’s report published in September; it has an environmental traffic light scorecard that has no green on it. Would you expect a Government with an environmental scorecard coloured red, red, red and amber to understand the value of Kew? Of course not. Labour is committed to halting and reversing the decline of our natural environment, and we are clear that Kew has an important role to play in meeting that ambitious goal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, his commitment to the institution and his desire to look at every opportunity to secure its work and underpin it for the future. The triennial review offers an opportunity to look at the position of the institution and where it sits in the Government structure. He has referred to that chance, and that is the proper time, rather than asking the question separately today.

Hon. Members have raised issues to do with science and the crucial work that is done. The hon. Member for Richmond Park talked about the need for succession planning, to which I referred a little, and Kew is looking at the courses and other work it does as academic provision to ensure that it is bringing through the next generation of expertise for the future. That is an important part of its work.

Hon. Members from all parties have been campaigning to keep Kew at the forefront of debate in the House and outside it among people at large. I have been on the receiving end of that, too, not only from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, but from Opposition Members. I have heard from Liberal Democrats in Richmond and elsewhere. Today, we had the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. So there has been pressure from throughout the country to ensure that we are doing the absolute best to protect Kew and all that it does.

As for the prospect of a further meeting, I will take that to my noble Friend Lord de Mauley, who is the responsible Minister. Given the Science and Technology Committee inquiry that is to begin tomorrow and the opportunities of the triennial review and the next comprehensive spending review, we will have to decide when the right point for such a meeting will be, but I will certainly take the proposal back to my noble Friend for his consideration. He is always happy to hear from Members of this House, as well as Members of another place, on the subject.

I also want to refute some of the little barbs sent in my direction by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who spoke for the Opposition. The Government have invested in science. As Forestry Minister, I know that the appointment of a chief plant health officer, the work on forestry research and so on are crucial, which is why we will continue to fund such things and take science forward.

The hon. Lady also made some points about funding generally. We heard from her party leader a few days ago about the fact that all parties will need to tackle issues such as how much Government will be able to invest in public services, how much expenditure will have to come from taxation and how much will have to be borrowed in the future. Those are difficult questions for all of us to answer.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister is being generous with his time, but I wish to remind him that I asked questions about today’s announcement. We would like the answers to the questions, rather than responses to the points made.

[Dan Rogerson]

I was merely responding to the hon. Lady’s assertion that, somehow, all would have been well and rosy for every area of public spending had a Labour Government been in office. I suspect that that would not have been the case.

The hon. Lady wanted to know whether the money announced today was new money. It is—it is not money coming from elsewhere in DEFRA’s budget. The funding is unrestricted and has no conditions attached to it, so Kew will be able to use it across the range of its responsibilities. All that money will be available in 2015-16. I hope that that reassures her and answers her questions.

I am grateful for the opportunity to place on the record the Government’s commitment to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. I thank hon. Members of all parties for their commitment and support. I hope that the announcement today by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister demonstrates that the money is available to help the transition that the institution is having to make over the coming years towards the long-term future that we all wish to see.