Anti-Corruption Strategy: Illegal Wildlife Trade

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your firm but fair chairship, Ms Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on her speech, which was a tour de force. I will not need to go over all the issues again, because she has covered them all.

This has been an important and thoughtful debate. I thank all hon. Members who spoke in it—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton, but also my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who all made valuable contributions. The debate’s importance was demonstrated by the rapid and regular interventions from the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield).

I will concentrate on the London conference, because it is something that we can contribute positively to today, but first let me make two quick observations. First, given how terrorist groups use the illegal wildlife trade to finance their activities, we need to make it clear that it is no less of a priority for us than the drugs trade or human trafficking. It is a multi-billion-pound exercise, from which many such organisations derive most of their income; we need to understand that when we consider Interpol and other matters. I will say in passing that if I manage to get into South Sudan later this year, I will have a word with the SPLA-SPLM about what they are doing to ensure that they legitimise their activities rather than drawing any money from this nefarious activity. Secondly, I do not understand how we can allow anyone in this country who goes trophy-hunting to come back with anything other than a potential prison sentence hanging over them. We need to be much firmer on that.

I have some questions about the London conference in October that the Minister may wish to take away—I do not expect her to answer them all now. I hope that at the conference we will establish a very strong legal framework against corruption and wildlife trafficking. That will be the bottom line. There are already several international laws, but we need to make them much more overt and much stronger. We need to recognise the importance of capacity-building and ensure that customs officials have discretionary powers to interdict and draw attention to what is happening in their countries. I hope we will support the World Customs Organisation’s important project GAPIN—Great Apes and Integrity—to enhance integrity in 15 African nations, because the role of Africa must not be underestimated.

We should also strengthen our international development support for enforcement, for shutting down chains, for helping frontline and subsequent investigations and for the operation of customs. We need a holistic approach; I hope that that will come out of the conference. It is no good pretending that we can address what is happening throughout the world unless we ensure we are doing all we can—whether through an ivory ban or through other measures—to stop the worst aspects of the trade affecting what happens in this country.

My penultimate point is that we need to look at import and export licences to ensure that what people bring into the country is what they say it is. We need to take a stronger approach, and we should encourage other countries to do so too.

Finally, I ask the Minister what particular action we are taking to help NGOs to ensure that they tackle the corruption and illegality associated with this terrible trade, because so much of the activity of the Department for International Development happens through the NGO community. We need to protect whistleblowers. So much of what we find out comes from people who have bravely put their head on the line and taken the risk of saying what is going on, so we must protect those people in their countries. I hope the Government will bring that up at the conference.

The conference will be very important, and it needs to be given much more attention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling says, this is the end—if we do not get this right now, not many of these species will be left and we will not have done the anti-poverty work that is needed. We have to give people alternatives, because we cannot pretend that we can shut the trade down without giving people a quality of life that allows them to stop what they are doing. That is why the conference is so essential. I wish the Minister well. I do not know whether she will speak at the conference, but as we are hosting it, I hope she will send a high-level deputation to ensure that the British Government do their bit and that we get something concrete out of it.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

If the Minister needs time to answer the questions that have been raised, I am mindful—given the length of the initial speech—to leave all the remaining time to her.

Draft Waste Enforcement (England and Wales) Regulations 2018

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Robertson. It must be waste, because all three of us—you, the Minister and I—are here. I welcome the Minister to her seat.

[Dr Coffey]

Waste not, want not.

[Dr Drew]

Yes. At least we know we are not dealing with the bag of black waste; this time, we are dealing with more than that. We will not get into an argument over that.

I will make some general comments to start with and then home in on the statutory instrument, because this is an important issue. For anyone who lives in a rural area such as mine, there are three areas of constant complaint: potholes, dog excrement and waste—largely fly-tipping, because that is growing. I caught a little bit of what the Minister said yesterday—I am sorry that I could not stay longer—and I would love to see the evidence that shows that when local councils impose a charge, it does not lead to more fly-tipping. It is important for us to know what the empirical evidence is, so I hope she will provide it, otherwise she will get a raft of parliamentary questions from me.

The SI puts the onus on the landowner who has had something tipped on to their land to take even more responsibility for dealing with it. In her summing up, will the Minister say what the safeguards are around that? The landowner seems to get hit every which way: they have stuff dumped on their land, and if it is toxic material such as asbestos, which needs specialised treatment and removal arrangements, they have to pay for that, too. That leads us into interesting areas of responsibility and blame.

The problem of stuff being tipped is growing by 7% a year. The figures show that local authorities have dealt with more than 1 million incidents of fly-tipping. Whether that is going to legitimate waste sites or not, that is still dealing with the problem of waste in a way that we do not want. Inevitably, people will find alternative ways to try to dispose of their waste, which is when we see fly-tipping. In particular, people who are on the more criminal side will see an opportunity to open up sites and to take money from people.

Local authorities have carried out 474,000 enforcement actions, which cost them about £16 million. It is great that the Minister is giving £30 million to the Environment Agency, but my big question is: what is she giving to local authorities at the front end? They will only bring the Environment Agency in afterwards because, initially, it is local authorities’ responsibility. There does not seem to be any more money going to local authorities, which is a worry, because it means that there will be a build-up. Once people see a pile of rubbish, they tend to add to it, and it becomes more and more of a problem.

Today’s SI is pretty obscure; one has to like legal documents or like reading what SIs are about to want to read it. It is not even as clear as chucking things from vehicles, which we eventually agreed that we understood. To pick up on specific points, proposed new section 59ZB on page 3 gives a waste regulation or collection authority the power to issue notices where waste is kept or disposed of in their areas. It goes into detail about what they are, and about the notion of 21 days. In some respects, 21 days is far too long, because the waste will mount up if it is not dealt with quickly, but if there is an argument about responsibility, that may end up in the courts and be difficult to resolve in that period.

The explanatory memorandum is the most interesting and clear bit in many respects. On page 2, it states categorically:

“More waste has been diverted away from landfill and put to beneficial use, with clear benefits to the environment and the tax payer.”

The sad fact is that it will not be recycled—recycling is flatlining—but will go to incineration.

The Opposition increasingly question, and look at alternatives to, incineration; to me, sticking stuff into the atmosphere is no better than sticking it in the ground. I know it may be lower down the waste hierarchy, but it is something that we ignore at our cost in the long run. When all this waste is collected, what pressure is on local authorities or the Environment Agency to deal with it appropriately? Clearly, most of us want to recycle what we can, and to avoid waste being incinerated or, dare I say, going into landfill.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about waste incineration. It is my understanding that more dioxins and other nasty things are released from an ordinary garden bonfire in one day than are released from a waste incinerator in a whole year, given the complexity of the scrubbers and all the cleansing arrangements. It is a total myth that waste incineration is polluting to the atmosphere.

[Dr Drew]

I would argue that we are far too lax in our control of bonfires. I could add a fourth thing that people moan about: people setting fire to their garden waste next door. Given that in many authorities—including mine—there are ways to dispose of garden waste, to me, bonfires are an idle way of dealing with it.

On dioxins and furans, which come out of incineration, my argument is that we are not properly checking that. We are somewhat ignorant about particulates and what they end up doing; they do come down somewhere, because their nature is to reassemble themselves. We are not necessarily talking about incineration here, but I am just using it as an example of why we have to be very careful about what we collect and what we do with it, because in this country we are not very good at deciding what we are doing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Is not the whole point of having a waste hierarchy that at the top of it is reducing waste from occurring in the first place? Then we try to recycle and reuse. Even anaerobic digestion allows us to produce energy from waste. Incineration is right at the bottom of the pile, before landfill, because it does not make any good use of those precious resources.

[Dr Drew]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Whenever we talk about waste in this place, it is right that we critique what we are doing and ask whether we can do it better. I could go on about how this building operates. I found out through parliamentary questions that we are not that good in how we dispose of our rubbish—out of sight, out of mind. If we cannot get it right in this place, how can we expect the Great British public to take waste more seriously?

I would like the Minister to explain in more detail the difference between what is unlawful and what is undesirable; that may be the argument that is considered when someone is thinking about whether they are responsible for removing certain waste. Take the example of a farmer who has had waste tipped on their land. It has been there some time, because it is difficult to remove. At what stage in the 21 days has it become unlawful? Is the onus entirely on the landowner then to remove it, pay for it and take precautionary measures to stop it from happening again? That is what was discussed in the bit of the meeting that I was in yesterday. We all know from going around the countryside that there are now more fields with boulders at the gates. That is about stopping people from getting access to the fields and, more particularly, stopping people from fly-tipping. That is an ever-present and difficult problem.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I was following the hon. Gentleman, but I am now perplexed, because proposed new section 59ZB(4)(a) and (8)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 specifically talks about the occupier not knowingly permitting the disposal of the waste. He cites the case of a farmer who has stuff dumped on him by some fly-tipper, and who has obviously not knowingly permitted it. In that case, the last paragraph of proposed new section 59ZB(8) makes it clear that

“the authority may remove the waste from the land, or take steps to eliminate or reduce the consequences of the keeping”

of it, and that responsibility does not fall on the landholder. It seems to me that the SI is quite clear on the point he is raising.

[Dr Drew]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but if that is the case, then where is the money for local authorities? If they are going to have to pick up the bill for all that removal, it will be a substantial increase in both their responsibilities and their funding. It will be more difficult to prove that there has been tipping, because sometimes people are casual in how they have allowed waste to collect on their land, and there may be an argument about whether they encouraged it, and whether it is their waste or something that has been tipped—particularly fly-tipped—as a result of illegal activity. That is what I would like the Minister to look into. I am basically asking where the resources are. If the Government want local authorities to be more proactive, they must give them resources. We know resources are given to the Environment Agency, but the Environment Agency will only take action as a back-up; it will only be brought in subsequently.

To finish my questions to the Minister, I would be interested to know what pressure there is on local authorities, and indeed the Environment Agency, to dispose of this waste appropriately. Of course, in one respect this is a welcome move, because we are dealing with illegality and an ever-present problem. I go back to what I said on the previous SI: I would prefer primary legislation. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which some of us were responsible for, was a good bit of legislation, but it certainly needs updating, because the nature of the problem has grown, and the way in which we deal with it therefore had to change. These SIs are indicative of that. I would prefer to deal with waste through primary legislation; we in the Opposition would give it support, because we feel that waste is such a big issue that it needs this sort of attention.

I hope the Minister has heard what I have to say. I am sure other people will want to make points about this important SI. My concluding remark is that I wish we could deal with this matter through primary legislation. That would make the public more aware that this place is doing something. More particularly, we would have the powers and responsibility to deal with the issue in the way that it should be dealt with.

Leaving the EU: Live Farm Animal Exports

David Drew Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, as I was to serve under that of Mr Wilson earlier. I congratulate the petition organiser and the many signatories. I shall not go over ground that has already been covered, as that is unnecessary, but we have explored some different approaches to the issue, so I shall start with some direct questions to the Minister, allowing him plenty of time to answer them.

I want to give an immediate answer to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who is not paying attention at the moment, about some things that the Labour Government did. There are not many Labour Members present; there are three of us now. Perhaps Labour could be criticised for not introducing a ban on live exports previously, but we are united: we will introduce a ban on live exports. Obviously we shall have to consult about how we do it, but it is our clear intention. The previous Labour Government made progress on animal welfare, with the fur farming ban, the Animal Welfare Act 2006—I am pleased the Government intend to update that, and we shall support them where appropriate—and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. That is aside from what we did on the foxhunting issue. There are two Conservative Members here who strongly supported the ban—the hon. Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who were staunch in their support—but unfortunately many did not. It took rather too long to get the measure through, and we make no apologies for saying that we will look again at some of the implications of the ban.

To begin my questions to the Minister, I want to hear categorically that, in line with the manifesto commitment and the Live Animal Exports (Prohibition) Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), he intends to bring forward legislation to ban live exports. I want to hear, with no ifs or buts, that the Government will be committed to that, notwithstanding some of the nuances—if not major differences—on how it can be done. It is important that we should hear how it will be done—whether by an amendment to the forthcoming agriculture Bill, or through an animal welfare Bill. We do not mind, and we will support it, but it would be good to know the timescale and mechanism. We obviously have some differences to sort out, not least with the territorial Administrations. It is interesting that we are not on the same page as the Scottish National party, or perhaps the Liberal Democrats, but we will do what we think is right and fair.

Secondly, I ask the Minister directly whether the issue is a deal breaker. Will we say now that we will not agree to any trade deal that does not prioritise animal welfare in exports? It is no good just saying that we will ban exports to the EU if we do not ban exports in every other potential trade deal. I know it is less likely that we will be bringing live animals from Australasia, but it would be pretty stupid to ban live exports to the EU if we do not state categorically up front that we will not do a trade deal unless a ban is in the fine print. It would be good to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Thirdly, although I thought the Conservative party was fairly clear on the ban, it is not very clear in its relationship with the National Farmers Union, which is less than sure that the Government intend to pursue their manifesto commitment. If the NFU will be pushing for caveats and exemptions—it is entirely clear that that is also the case for the territorial farming organisations—it would be good to know quite early on what exemptions could be considered. Maybe the Minister will want to take that point away.

We know about the problems with the Irish border, which will be considerable whether or not we are in a customs union or a single market. We in the Labour party are fairly clear about where we are on those things—eventually. The situation will not be easy if the NFU believes that it really has nothing to worry about, because there are certainly some issues that it does need to worry about if it wants to maintain this trade.

Fourthly—this is a slight tangent, but nevertheless important—it is all well and good talking about banning live exports, but we are not completely on top of some of the things that happen in this country. Some hon. Members will have seen the headlines in The Guardian over the weekend about some of the problems in our meat trade. We know about the scandal over horsemeat, which of course came from the Republic of Ireland. If we are going to do the decent thing and kill animals in abattoirs here, we need some pretty clear guarantees. I agree entirely that we need more local abattoirs, but the problem is that we are shutting even more at the moment. We shut a lot in the new Labour era, but that has not stopped. It continues.

Through foot and mouth, we learned of some of the mad ways in which our meat trade operates. We move animals up and down the country for a few pence on a sheep, largely depending on which abattoir the supermarkets want to send them to. It would be quite sensible to look at the regulation of that as well as the live export ban. We have to be clear that we have something substantially different in place. I say clearly to the Minister that the Russell Hume collapse has brought it to our attention that there are things going on out there that we should be much better at, regardless of where we kill the animals. It is all well and good saying that we have very high welfare standards, but we have to prove that, and sometimes we are not able to do that because of some of the things that are going on.

My last point is, dare I say it, the usual one: it would be great if this was all happening along with an improvement in the quality of inspection and, where necessary, of prosecution. Sadly, there have been major cuts in that area. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is now a much reduced body, and does anyone really think that our trading standards departments are in a stronger position than they were seven, 10 or 15 years ago? They have been cut to ribbons. That is where the cuts have taken place in local authorities.

The idea that there is a lot of inspection going on out there is sadly a myth. There is stuff that goes on out of sight and out of mind. That has an impact both on local government, through trading standards departments, and on the meat trade through the Food Standards Agency, which has also been cut back. If we are serious about this issue, we cannot pretend that we have to do anything other than make sure that those cuts are reversed. It is no good passing new legislation unless we put the resources in place to ensure that we are doing things properly.

I want to look quickly at some of the issues that have perhaps not been highlighted as much as they could have been. The documentation from the Library, produced by Elena Ares, is very useful. For one thing, following up on a parliamentary question that I asked, it shows the variability in the number of animals going for export. The variation is quite dramatic year on year. I do not know what causes that, and whether it is because of domestic price changes, but we are talking about hundreds of thousands more animals going one year than the previous year. There are some peculiarities in the trade that need to be highlighted.

If we are consistent in wanting to improve on and enhancing what the EU does, we need to go back to European Commission regulation 1200/2005, which effectively reinforces the allowing of live exports. It sets down standards such as the 65 km rules and the eight-hour rule, which have been talked about today. We have to ensure that we improve on those rules. It is no good just transposing them into British legislation without genuinely improving on them. I ask the Minister, as an aside, what guarantees he will give that we will enhance the existing situation.

There are a number of ways in which the EU already accepts that there are infringements. It does not do a very good job of regulation, and there has been a European Court of Justice ruling on live exports showing that there are inadequacies in inspection and prosecution across the whole EU. That goes back to the issue of trade; the Opposition want to be sure that WTO rules can be amended in such a way that they will not be a hurdle. It is no good leaving the customs union and single market if we cannot be clear that we can deal with WTO rules. That is an easy one for the Minister, because I am sure he will say that we will be able to do that, but we need to be absolutely up front about it. Finally, while the EU and its trade strategy and treaties have regard for animal welfare on one level, we need to be clear that our new regulations will be better than those already in existence.

I have asked questions of the Minister, and we have had an interesting debate. We have heard from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who introduced the debate, the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for South Thanet, for Gordon (Colin Clark) and for North Thanet. We also heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for the SNP—maybe we need to sit down and work out where the opposition to the ban is coming from. There were other interesting and helpful interventions.

The onus is now on the Government to say what they will do. The legislation needs to come forward; we will support it if it comes forward quickly, although we may choose to amend bits of it—if anything, we may try to toughen it. We need clarity on what the Irish border situation really means. I saw one of the Democratic Unionist party spokespeople here earlier, and the DUP will have strong opinions on how that is going to work.

If we are serious about animal welfare, this is an issue that cannot be ducked any longer. We all saw some of the horrific pictures from Ramsgate, Dover and so on. To some extent, we have got rid of the worst aspects of that, but it has not gone away. Unless we legislate, and have the resources to ensure that we can enforce the legislation we introduce, it will be but a pyrrhic victory—but a victory, nevertheless, whose time has come. I hope we can get on and do that properly in due course, and that the Minister will assure me that that is what the Government are going to do.

Leaving the EU: Chemicals Regulation

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairing, Mr Evans. It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), back in her place; I fear that we may spend some time in statutory instrument Committees, including on this topic. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), Chair of the Committee, on a thoughtful presentation. I do not intend to repeat much of it, because I think that the Minister has got her train of thought and will be answering some of her points.

I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for their speeches, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who made an intervention. The hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), although he is no longer in his place, made a good contribution, and the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), who spoke for the Scottish National party, also raised numerous pertinent points.

The report is good and, I must say, pithy. I enjoy Select Committee findings when they can be read within a relatively short time; I always think that the shorter they are, the better the quality. That would be fine, except that the Government’s response was even shorter and, I am afraid, not as pithy, in the sense that it did not get to the point of things, except one bit, which I will ask the Minister about. The Government say:

“The government will use the Repeal Bill (The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill) to convert EU law into UK law and use the powers to amend REACH, as well as other related chemicals regulation to make them work properly in the UK.”

Can I assume from that that REACH is still the preferred methodology for dealing with chemicals? That is important. As far as I understand it, this is an interesting issue, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is only one part of it, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy also has a strong interest. I gather that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has more or less intimated that he also wants some continuation of the relationship to REACH. Is that our starting point? That is my question for the Minister, because all other factors follow from that. The issue is important. Interestingly, this excellent paper from the House of Commons Library on Brexit and the environment uses REACH as an example of the implications, because it will have a pretty big impact on our industry, but also on how we feel safe with chemicals.

The report preceded the general election, even though the Government’s response came after it, so we must consider something a bit more recent—the 25-year environment plan, in which three pages are allocated to chemicals. It makes some clear commitments. On page 100, the Government commit to four actions. The first is:

“Publishing an overarching Chemicals Strategy to set out our approach as we leave the EU.”

When? The second is:

“Exploring options to consolidate monitoring and horizon-scanning work to develop an early warning system for identifying emerging chemical issues.”

How will that be done? The third is:

“Considering how we will address tracking of chemicals in products to reduce barriers to recycling and reuse whilst preventing a risk from harmful chemicals.”

Who will do that? If not Government, will it be done in partnership? The fourth is:

“Working 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 new approaches to risk assessments.”

If not REACH, what could it possibly be?

We have already talked about double registration, the impact on jobs and investment and the possibility of relocation. All four of those actions impinge closely on how the industry will evolve, so it is important for the Minister to give us at least some way forward on how the Government are tackling them. Like my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wakefield, I read the previous Brexit impact assessment—are we allowed to call it an impact assessment now? Like everyone else, I do not know whether the Minister has seen the one on chemicals; presumably it would have been referred to in the latest documentation, which we have been debating this week. It is important to know that the industry will feature, because it is important.

In terms of where we are, it is not just a question of the chemical industry. As my hon. Friends have made clear, it is about how that locks into all sorts of other industries, such as the food chain, health and medicines and animal welfare. That is important, because every time I sit next to someone from those industries, all they say to me is, “Is there any certainty? Is there any way we can make decisions? We don’t know what we’re going to do, because we get nothing but confusion. We need some clarity.”

It is not just about the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East discussed some of the implications when things have gone wrong. I mention organophosphates, to pick up an issue after not having been here for some time. I am dealing with a constituent who suffers from organophosphate poisoning. It has nothing to do with the Minister—it predates both her Government and mine, although it involved mine—but we all know that when regulation goes wrong, people suffer. For someone facing the repercussions of OP poisoning, it is awful. That is why we must get this right. It is a matter of human safety and, eventually, someone’s life experience, so it would be good to know that this issue is at the top of DEFRA’s agenda, and that the Department is talking to BEIS to ensure that we get it right.

I have a series of questions. I will go through them quickly, but they are important. First, the European Chemicals Agency, the current chemicals regulator, has extensive databases. Are we talking to the ECHA about how we could still access those databases after exit day? Secondly, I have already referred to the overarching chemical strategy. Is there a timetable? I know that it has been said that it will not happen until after exit day, but there must be some clear steer on what the timetable is. Thirdly, will the Department be transparent and publish what it is doing and thinking about how those procedures will be taken forward?

Chemistry World published a story—whether it was a leak or an inspired story—that said that Government had set aside £5.8 million for an IT system to look at the registration and regulation of chemicals. Can the Minister confirm that? Is that in addition to REACH or a replacement?

I have mentioned the Business Secretary’s view that REACH is something we need to build on rather than replace. It would be useful to know whether the Department is talking to BEIS about how that will happen.

The Department’s research is hopefully now focused on this issue. Does it have sufficient civil servants and sufficient expertise? Is it drawing in other outside expertise? It is very important to draw together to ensure that whatever the outcome, we get this right.

Finally, can the Minister assure me that there is no intention to lower standards? The bottom line is that it cannot be any worse, for the reasons that we have discussed: people suffered when we got it wrong, and the industry needs stability and security. The Minister has plenty of time to respond, and I look forward to hearing her answers.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that it is customary to allow a couple of minutes at the end for Mary Creagh to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Drew]

After the dreadful experience of the Rural Payments Agency’s IT system, will the Minister confirm whether the IT system to replicate REACH has already been commissioned? Will it be put out to private contractors or done in-house within Government?

[Dr Coffey]

The system is at the stage where we are waiting for an aspect of the business case to be signed off. I have met the new Minister responsible for the Health and Safety Executive—the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)—and work is ongoing between our Departments and the HSE.

The most relevant environmental principle to chemicals regulation is the precautionary principle, which is embedded in international conventions relevant to the regulation of chemicals, such as the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants, to which the UK will continue to be a signatory in its own right. The Secretary of State has announced that we will consult on how we will incorporate various environmental principles and governance mechanisms, and we are carefully considering our proposals at the moment.

As the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) noted, we recently published our 25-year environment plan, in which we acknowledged that chemicals provide substantial benefits to society, but their widespread use in industry, agriculture, food systems and homes has led in some cases to pollution of land, water, air and food. We will publish a new chemicals strategy to tackle chemicals of national concern. The new strategy, which will build on existing regulatory approaches, will set our priorities for action and will detail how we will achieve our goals. It is intended to support collaborative work on human biomonitoring, address the combination effects of different chemicals and improve how we track chemicals across supply chains. I am not able to set out a timeline, but I certainly do not anticipate that the strategy will be published this year, because our main focus is implementing a smooth transition and continuing existing regulations.

We also need to consider the domestic market within the United Kingdom. REACH currently gives us a consistent framework across the UK, and we would like that consistency to continue. We have already started discussions with the devolved Administrations on a future chemicals framework across the UK.

Let me tackle some other questions raised by hon. Members. Is REACH the preferred methodology for chemicals regulation? In our international discussions, as I told the Environmental Audit Committee, we are not minded to take the United States’ approach. We think that REACH has shown its worth. As has been pointed out, a lot of chemical companies were not necessarily its greatest fans when it was introduced but are now embracing it. When I discuss the matter with Ministers from Brazil and other countries, it is clear that they are trying to get the best of all worlds, which is what we need to ensure for ourselves as we go forward. I have spoken to Switzerland, and I think officials have had discussions with South Korea. A lot of countries are taking a REACH-style approach but may not be replicating it in every detail.

On early warning and horizon scanning, I hope we can set out our approach in more detail when we publish our chemicals strategy. In answer to the question about sufficient expertise, I must point out that the HSE is the responsible authority and there is no reason to doubt its expertise; I commend it for its work in support of the chemicals industry.

I fully understand hon. Members’ concerns about bureaucracy, which is why we are in negotiations. I am afraid that I cannot give hon. Members an update on where we are, because phase 2 of the negotiations is yet to start; I fully understand the uncertainty that that brings. I have engaged with stakeholders. We have seen only representatives becoming part of networks or opening branch offices in different countries or a presence in the European Union. As I told the Committee, from my experience of working in multinational companies, I fully expect them to be contingency planning, but that does not mean that they will be abandoning this country all of a sudden. Far from it: the size of the market in this country, not only for chemicals but—as has already been explained—for many other manufacturing sectors, absolutely means that they will keep a permanent presence in the United Kingdom.

I do not anticipate any new approaches to risk assessment. The precautionary principle is well embedded in what we do. As I have articulated, we will be bringing different regulations into law, as will the devolved Administrations. We sit on committees now and we hope to retain those links in the future, but that is a matter for the negotiations.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raised third-party country status. We still need to consider and negotiate elements of that. The approach set out by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government, in which not being governed by the European Court of Justice is a guiding principle in what we do, still applies, so some assessment is still needed. Bioaccumulation is among the matters that we intend to cover in our chemicals strategy.

Let me assure hon. Members that ensuring we have a regulatory regime that continues to be effective is a very important part of my portfolio, but my top priority has been a smooth transition. As I am sure hon. Members recognise, I cannot answer questions today about exactly what our future customs arrangements with the rest of the European Union will be. However, I am highly conscious that we want to help business to continue to be successful, and I would like it to get certainty as quickly as possible. I am sure that I have disappointed hon. Members today by not being able to do that, but I will move on to the next phase of negotiations shortly.

I reiterate that we will do all we can to ensure a smooth transition and a successful industry for years to come. I saw the hon. Member for Stroud and members of the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday. I am sure that broad consideration of the environment in different ways and across different industries will continue, quite rightly, to be a key topic for debate in Parliament.

Draft Littering from Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the Minister to her place—I also welcome the civil servant to his place; maybe he will give the answers.

This is an interesting, if not worrying, topic. I am a little surprised that we have been through the whole of the Minister’s speech, not to mention the draft regulations and the explanatory notes, but not yet had a number. This is quite a worrying issue, and the number of incidents is increasing. I was involved in the passage of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, through which the previous Labour Government put this into primary legislation.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this proposal would be particularly beneficial for our waterways? A lot of the rubbish that people throw out of cars ends up in our waterways, canals and rivers, and even blocks up drainage —it goes right down to that level.

[Dr Drew]

As the proud possessor in my constituency of the Gloucester and Sharpness canal and, hopefully one day, the completed Stroudwater canal, I totally agree.

Let us put some numbers to this, to give some context for why it is important. In 2016-17 local authorities in England dealt with more than 1 million incidents of fly-tipping—I will use that term because no one else has, and because it was referred to as fly-tipping in the 2005 Act—which was a 7% increase on the previous year. Two thirds of incidents of fly-tipping involved household waste, and the total number of incidents increased by 8% from 2015-16.

There is a consistent relationship between where people tip and how much they tip. Clearly, most of that takes place on our highways—some half of all incidents—and again, that is increasing. Sadly, quite a lot is tipped. That is something I will ask the Minister about. I am a little bit confused by what we mean by littering. If I truck up in my four-by-four and chuck four used tyres in the nearest layby, is that littering or is that covered by some other legislation?

That is the nature of what this is. It is not just chance, although clearly people chuck things out of their car windows. A lot of this is people getting rid of things that sadly they would otherwise be charged for. I know a little bit about this because, as you will know, Mr Robertson, in the good old days Stroud did not charge for the disposing of large items, so the good people of Gloucester used to come and dump them in Stroud. We now charge for them, so there is no reason for people to dump them in Stroud anymore. However, it is an issue, because people will dispose of rubbish, and unless they are prevented from doing so, or fined when they are caught, this will grow.

It is estimated that the cost of clearing fly-tipped waste in 2016-17 was £57.7 million, which is not an inconsiderable sum. Local authorities carried out 474,000 enforcement actions, costing about £16 million. That is staggering, because we think it is difficult to follow up fly-tipping, but there is actually a lot more action by local authorities, which cost some £900,000.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is not only expensive and unsightly, but very harmful to our environment and the wildlife that lives along the roadsides?

[Dr Drew]

Of course, that is one of the problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, rubbish ends up in waterways or being swallowed by animals, and we know the consequences. There is a big financial pressure on local authorities, which is why in the consultation they are asking not necessarily for greater powers, but for the fines to be more conversant with a proper process for dealing with the problem.

[Lucy Powell]

Is it therefore my hon. Friend’s calculation that there is a net cost to local authorities of enforcing it, that there will not be profits for local authorities from issuing fines, and that they will spend more on administering it and identifying people than they will get back from any fines?

[Dr Drew]

Of course, that is a problem we must dwell on: if the cost of trying to pursue someone is much greater than the benefit in fines, most local authorities will give up. The figures do not show the actual number of cases, because many local authorities will find them difficult to pursue.

[Mr Seely]

It is going to be very difficult to enforce this anyway, because the problem is that we will have “he said” or “she said”, versus somebody else saying, “I saw somebody throw something out of the car,” which then they deny. It is about social pressure. A lot of it is not necessarily about enforcement through the law, but a sense of social enforcement; chucking litter out of cars should be seen to be wrong. It will not affect everybody, and it will not change everyone’s behaviour, but this law simply being enacted should change some people’s behaviour, which would have a positive result. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just about cost?

[Dr Drew]

Of course it is about changing behaviour and attitudes, but we have to punish people who are blatantly getting rid of something that they should dispose of in another way. That is why I use the word “fly-tipping”. It is about not just the casual removal of stuff from cars, but people doing it in a much more organised way.

In a nutshell, we are looking not just at passing a new regulatory instrument, but at how it will be enforced and funded. We are really looking at the complexity of the waste sector, which is an important part of the issue, and at what is hidden and disguised, because it is not being pursued. In due course we will have to look at primary legislation, because waste is now a very important, and very political, area.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just how it is enforced, but who it is enforced by? We are talking about not just specific waste enforcement officers, but all sorts of other officers, who may or may not have been available in the past, who will no longer be available. For instance, in the area around Ipswich all the countryside officers are losing their jobs because the county council has stopped funding the countryside service. They are the sort of people who might have been able to enforce the regulation in the past, but their role no longer exists because of local authority cuts.

[Dr Drew]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Clearly, local authorities are, in a sense, hit in every which way. They are losing staff, so their eyes and ears are diminishing. It is expensive to pursue such cases. They can fine more, but they still have to go through processes that, as I will say in a minute when I talk specifically about the order, possibly lead to appeal, which would result in even more expense and possibly not getting any money back if they lost.

The Local Government Association largely welcomes this development, and sees it as very important. It estimates that the problem is costing councils £57 million a year—money that is not spent on elderly persons’ services, education, homelessness, and other issues. Councils would always take a zero-tolerance view, but I reiterate that they do not necessarily have the means to pursue it. Litter is also a particular problem on roads, and the highway authorities are at a loss to know how they can deal with this environmental hazard. Councils wish the process for taking people to court, if that is the result, to be expedited—this is a fining process, but people might go to court in a more major case of littering or fly-tipping—because that process is what costs the money.

Keep Britain Tidy also has its threepenny-worth on this issue, while welcoming the measure. To give an idea of the scale, Keep Britain Tidy estimates that 150,000 sacks of litter are collected by contractors each year—that is 411 sacks every day, or 83 bags per mile of Highways England motorway network. We are talking about a scale problem and, at £40 a bag, that is the same as mending a pothole. That also gives us an idea of why we do not mend enough potholes—as you know, Mr Robertson, in Gloucestershire we had some problem with potholes. As we have discussed, we are not talking about a futile exercise of making the place look tidy; this is about damage to wildlife, our water courses and the rest.

To finish on the figures, however, because they are important, it is estimated that 82% of main roads have cigarette litter. We have not mentioned cigarettes yet, but they are a predominant problem. Sixty-seven per cent. of main roads have confectionary or sweet packaging or wrappers on them, 62% have soft drinks litter on them—cans, bottles and cartons—and 50% have fast-food packaging on them. We sometimes wonder why those who sell such things do not pay a price, given that they are at least partly responsible for the litter.

Perhaps the most worrying figure of the lot is that about one in seven drivers readily admits to throwing things out of the car window. That is a lot of people. For heavy goods vehicle drivers, that figure rises to one in five, but we will pass on from that quickly. The problem, dare I say it, tends to be a male one, and people who smoke tend to be more likely to throw things out of the window. That is some background to a scale problem.

The secondary legislation is important, but in future we may have to look at the need to toughen the primary legislation, which is now more than 10 years out of date. This statutory instrument is entirely dependent on the 2005 Act. I have some specifics for the Minister to respond to. I am a little confused about why London is different. Perhaps London is always different, but the draft regulations exclude London, so it would be useful to know what the situation in London is. Is it better because it is different, or are the draft regulations catching up with London?

On the orders being served against people, I am a little confused about the relationship between the police and the local authorities. I understand that local authorities have to follow things up, but if the police catch someone throwing something out or, more particularly, if someone sees a person going to a lay-by, so the police come along and catch the person, what is the relationship between the criminal and civil law? That would be useful to know.

[Dr Johnson]

Is not one of the advantages of the measure, under which the civil burden of proof has to be met when someone throws litter from a vehicle, that people need not throw litter in front of a police car in order to be caught? Dash-cam footage from members of the public could be submitted to the council as proof. That will have a huge deterrent effect, because people never know who is behind them or who will do what with such evidence.

[Dr Drew]

I understand that, and that is important, but what I am intimating is that we are talking about not merely people throwing things out of vehicles casually, but people who are very organised in how they dispose of their litter. It is likely that a farmer would ring the police to say, “Someone is tipping lots of stuff on to my field.” Whether the police get there in time is another matter, but the important thing is that it could involve police action.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. He keeps referring to fly-tipping has but also said that one in seven drivers throws litter from their car. Presumably this measure aims to remedy that. In my constituency, we have slip roads off the M54 on which there is a huge issue with litter from cars, in particular around the service station on junction 6. I would be grateful if he confirmed that that is what this legislation will tackle, not fly-tipping.

[Dr Drew]

I would welcome the Minister explaining that; we are still the Opposition, though we can but dream. The regulations do not mention fly-tipping, but I do not know what the difference would be.

[Dr Coffey]

Just to be clear, fly-tipping and littering are separate matters, covered by separated regulations.

[Dr Drew]

But that is the problem, because one person’s fly-tipping is another person’s disposing of litter.

[Hon. Members]

No, it’s not!

[Dr Drew]

Hon. Members ought to come to my part of the world, where people disposing of things from vehicles—[Interruption.] Please tell me what the difference is between someone who is casually throwing litter—

[Vicky Ford]

rose—

[Dr Drew]

Oh, we will have experts now!

[Vicky Ford]

In my part of the world, there is an issue with fly-tipping. There is an issue with individuals taking large vehicles and dumping very large quantities of rubbish, sometimes builders’ rubbish, on to agricultural land. That is fly-tipping, and the fines for it should be way in excess of the £100 for chucking a bit of rubbish out of a car. This piece of legislation, which I have read, deals with litter. In my understanding, that is a very different subject, and I thank the Minister for clarifying that.

[Dr Drew]

I am sorry to disagree, but they are very much the same issue. The way in which people dispose of rubbish has been made worse, and it is sad that local authorities do not necessarily offer a full range of services now. I would argue—the Minister can clarify this—that while we are largely talking about litter that is casually thrown out of vehicles, the overlap with fly-tipping is a growing and worrying problem, from the numbers I have given.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that fly-tipping is when someone parks a car, goes and gets rubbish out, and throws it down at the side of the road? This legislation is to do with litter being thrown out the window of a vehicle, stationary or moving.

[Dr Drew]

I think that is a moot point. At the end of the day, it is clear that we have a growing problem of people disposing of litter in various ways. If the Minister wants to say that this is clearly not about fly-tipping in any way at all, she can clarify that when summing up. I am making the point that sadly there are many more people who casually tip things from their car. It might be their cigarette ends, but is that fly-tipping or is it casually removing things from their vehicle? That is what is going on out there, and it is costing a large amount of money to deal with it.

[Sandy Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing in the statutory instrument that identifies the dimensions of what is thrown out of the window? Some vehicles have quite large windows, and substantial quantities of stuff could be thrown out of them.

[Mr Seely]

rose—

[Dr Drew]

I will give way finally to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will move on and try to get through this debate on this measure.

[Mr Seely]

Has the hon. Gentleman ever tried chucking a large plastic bag out of a moving car? It is a difficult thing to do. I understand his point that fly-tipping and chucking out a sweet wrapper are both, sui generis, chucking stuff out of a car, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire said, there is a significant difference between unloading 15 fridges and leaving them in a field and throwing a McDonald’s out while driving. Those are very different things, and I understood this debate to be about the latter, not the former.

[The Chair]

Order. I think we have had quite a discussion about the meaning of these regulations. The Minister is probably best placed to explain it more fully when she gets back to her feet. These are the draft littering from vehicles regulations. Having had that debate, perhaps we could move on.

[Dr Drew]

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Perhaps we will be back here with another statutory instrument to consider the relationship between fly-tipping and littering. However, I will say no more on that, and I will not take any more interventions on it.

I am intrigued to know why, under one part of the regulations, Plymouth City Council has a specific exemption. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is sitting behind me; we were both quite intrigued to read that. The appeal process is still quite difficult to understand, particularly given that, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire identified, the keeper of a vehicle is not necessarily the person who has littered from it. How will that work under the regulations? I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

I am always intrigued by who an adjudicator is and how they are chosen. The regulations refer to that process, but it would be good to understand what sort of person adjudicates when there is a dispute over rubbish that is disposed of in this way. If someone has littered and they are driving on behalf of a business, it is not totally clear to me what the responsibility of the business is. It looks as though the littering is the responsibility of the individual, but there could be the additional problem of the business either taking action against that individual or, more particularly, condoning what they have done. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how the regulations operate in that regard.

On the costs, the consultation is very interesting, because it effectively urges the Government to go further faster, by introducing higher fines and providing more resources to follow up the introduction of these regulations. It would be useful to know what the Government intend to do to help those local authorities that have responded to this issue and intend to take it seriously.

Regarding rental companies, I cannot see what would happen if someone rented a car and was caught throwing litter from it. They are not the keeper of the car, and they may not have been seen throwing the litter; somebody may have seen the litter coming from the car. The hire car company will then be blamed, rather than the individual. How will that issue be pursued? There are also dash-cams. The regulations say that video evidence can be used, but are dash-cams likely to be the way in which we can crack down on this issue? I ask that because eventually we have to stop people littering, given the scale of the problem. We had the argument earlier, but littering is a much bigger problem than these regulations perhaps make us think. Is that how we see this going? Will the regulations make sure that people are prevented from littering, given the scale of the problem?

I welcome all the contributions today. These regulations are one of those statutory instruments that address what seems to be a very minimalistic, almost minor, issue, but the scale of this—the figures involved, which I have given to the Committee—shows that this is a big, growing problem, so the Government have to address it. They may do so initially through these regulations, but there are arguments about how we determine how litter gets out of a car and into the countryside, making it look worse. In time, another clean neighbourhood Act may be demanded, because the current one is clearly not working as well as it could.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He does an outstanding job working for his constituents in Ochil and South Perthshire, and I am looking forward to visiting his beautiful constituency next week. We must absolutely continue to work across the United Kingdom to ensure that the interests of all farmers—Scottish, Welsh or English, and arable or livestock—are respected by a new UK-wide framework.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The 2016 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds bird crime report stated that there were 81 confirmed cases of raptor persecution, yet not one prosecution followed. Can the Minister explain why, and what is she going to do about it?

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

We take this issue very seriously, which is why it is one of National Wildlife Crime Unit’s six crime priorities. It is important that we continue to get evidence so that we can have appropriate prosecutions. The Government cannot direct the police or the Crown Prosecution Service to launch those prosecutions, but we encourage everybody who cares for wildlife to bring evidence to the police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman has always been assiduous in asking about gender balance. I am delighted to be able to say that the intake of female ordinands has seen an increase of 19% compared with last year. Although women make up only a third of the fully ordained clergy in place at the moment, we are moving, like other professions, towards 50:50.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the diocese of Gloucester it would seem that as soon as we fill one vacancy, another arises. Bishop Rachel is working very hard, but the situation can be sorted only if we bring more people forward for training. What is the Church of England doing to enable that to happen?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

We celebrated the introduction of Bishop Rachel as the first female bishop following the change in the law. We now have a female bishop for Newcastle sitting in the Lords, and very recently a female bishop for London was appointed. There is clear evidence of progress, and there is a method of positive discrimination whereby dioceses eligible to be represented in the Lords are encouraged to appoint a woman so that the Lords moves towards better representation of female bishops.

Forestry in England

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for introducing the debate. If nothing else, it gets Lord David Clark off my back. When I was on the Committee he spent a lot of time asking why we never debated forestry. I had to explain to him that I was a limited voice on a much bigger Committee, but it is good that the Committee has discussed it, and that the hon. Gentleman has managed to arrange today’s debate for the same day as the announcement of the 25-year environment plan. If only I had that much authority, I would not be where I am today.

This is an important milestone and an important piece of work by the Committee. Government Members can be critical of the Government, and I will also make some points in that respect, but today’s debate is largely consensual, because we all love trees and want more trees. The only question is how we get them. Sadly, we do not always simply get more trees—some are cut down, which causes all sorts of problems. I have a great many friends in Stroud who seem to spend a lot of their time sitting in trees that they do not want cut down, but that is Stroud, and they are the people I represent. I therefore have an interest in how trees have grown and been saved, and sometimes not been saved.

Today’s debate is marked by the interests of a number of bodies. I will declare my own interests: I am a member of both the National Trust, which has a great many trees in Stroud, and the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, which also has trees. I am indebted to the Woodland Trust, which also has trees in Stroud, and Confor, which does a marvellous job in making sure that the all-party parliamentary group on forestry—it is good to see the group’s chair, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), here—functions very efficiently and effectively. I dare say, That is why we are discussing trees today.

I owe much of my knowledge of forestry to a dear late friend, John Workman, who, by any stretch of the imagination, would be described as a forester. He was such a good advocate of forestry that he bequeathed all his woodlands—he was a single gentleman—to the National Trust. The Ebworth Estate—I do not know whether hon. Members know Stroud—is a wonderful centre. The woodlands around are crucial to the way in which Stroud, as a constituency, lives, breathes and functions. His dream was always that there would be a ring of trees all the way around the centre of Stroud, so that people could walk round without ever leaving the woodland. That has not quite come to pass, because there are certain private woodland owners who have not yet agreed to full access. I say to the Minister that it would be interesting to see how the new structure of farm payments will encourage woodland owners, with sensibility, to make sure that there is proper access, so that people can walk round and get the benefits of that.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am always interested in calls for access, because one of the big problems is the spread of disease. Phytophthora ramorum spores can very easily be spread on people’s boots, so if someone walks in a forestry that has phytophthora in it—most of the Forestry Commission wood in Wales does—other woodland could be infected. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on how he would deal with the question of access versus disease?

[Dr Drew]

When speaking of access, I used the word “sensibility”. People cannot be allowed to walk wherever they want—that has to be recognised—but there is a lot of evidence that the right to roam, within reason, has been less destructive than some people would allege, and I think that we can move forward on that.

We have had very good contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and from the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), as well as a short contribution from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). Although hon. Members from the Scottish National party are largely interested in Scotland, it is good that we recognise that this is a genuine United Kingdom debate. We should welcome that, and learn from what they are doing right in Scotland, because we all have to plant more trees.

To be slightly critical of today’s environment plan— I have only just got a copy of it, but perhaps the Minister can explain this to me—the first bit says:

“We will also work with industry and support Grown in Britain to increase the amount of home grown timber used in England in construction, creating a conveyor belt of locked-in carbon in our homes and buildings”.

I am not quite sure what that means. If the Minister can tell me what “locked-in carbon” neutrality is, I would be very pleased to be disabused.

In the few minutes I have left, I will concentrate on three areas, some of which have been highlighted already. I want Minister to understand where there is a need for more detail, both in the response to the Select Committee report and in the 25-year environment plan. First, there is the issue of how we get to 12% by 2060, which is not clearly spelled out in either the response or the 25-year environment plan. We need detail about how that will be achieved. There is a lot on aspiration, but much less on the detail. Those with knowledge of the industry are more than a little sceptical about where the detail will come from.

Secondly, there is the issue of woodland management and how we protect our ancient woodlands, which a number of hon. Members highlighted. We need to lay down clearly what the criteria are for the planning system. I am aware that that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but she will have to talk to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about areas where we are protecting woodlands, which means that they cannot be developed.

A particular interest of mine is how forestry relates to climate change. Again, I have not had the opportunity to read the 25-year plan in detail, but I am a bit worried that the approach to carbon capture and to using woodlands as part of how we deal with climate change is not as clearly spelled out as it could and should be. It would be useful if the Minister can say something about how management, protection and growing more trees will be achieved.

Finally, as the Chair of the Select Committee intimated, the grant system is more than a little messy. The way that countryside stewardship approaches woodlands is dated. There are a number of other grant schemes, which I have never really understood—I am not an expert in this field—but I talk to people who have an interest in how they might be persuaded to grow more trees. As has been made clear, we are not just talking about the new northern forest, much as it is welcome—I suppose the northern forest will be alongside the new northern powerhouse, but it could be around it. This is not just about the big answers, but about the small copses and areas around the market towns where I live. We have got to give landowners, including housing developers, the opportunity to come up with innovative schemes.

I want to mention two other people in passing, because they are apposite to this debate. John Parker, who happens to be a constituent of mine, is the head of trees at Transport for London, and has taught me a few things about how we need to look at tree surgery, which we have not touched on, and the way in which we maintain urban trees as well as trees in the countryside. That is very interesting, because we must not see urban trees as negligible. They are part of the solution, so we need more trees in the urban setting. Chris Uttley has been leading a project to try to keep the water upstream so we have less flooding in towns such as Stroud, and part of that is about the sensitive planting of trees. Those people are important to me locally, and they have part of the solution for dealing with climate change and flooding, and maintaining our natural environment alongside our built environment. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who is going to provide all the detail now she is back in office.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend, who did an outstanding job when she was Secretary of State, is absolutely right. No country in the world has a finer equestrian tradition than our own. We can build on that tradition to ensure that services are provided to international markets.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is there anyone, other than the Secretary of State and the Legatum Institute, who thinks that a free trade deal with Trump’s America would be good for British farming and the UK food chain?

[Michael Gove]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I ask myself the very same question. There have been several attempts and undertakings, including by the previous Labour Government in 2002. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to do everything they can to make sure that we achieve this change in the law and give fair wind to the Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say. Will she also talk to the Church about making it easier for people to get married in church and, indeed, to have their children baptised? That would be real equality.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

When answering that question on previous occasions, I have given examples of how churches reach out to the surrounding community so that the thought of getting married is not intimidating. It does not need to be expensive, either—getting married in church is probably the least part of what it actually costs to put on a wedding. I can point the hon. Gentleman towards our materials to encourage people to get married in church.

Dark Sky Status (Cornwall)

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

I call Dr Drew.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma—

[Bill Grant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I say again what a pleasure it is to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and how fair of you it was to call the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant)?

I am delighted to take part in this debate. I welcome the way the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) led it, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on his contribution. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made an intervention, is no longer in his place, but I know that will not count against him. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), too, for her contribution on behalf of the SNP.

I do not intend to delay Members long, but I will make some remarks that I hope will be helpful. This debate has been a learning experience for me. I usually get people moaning when their lights go off and asking me to ensure that they are put back on, but it is valuable for people to have the opportunity to look at the dark sky. I thought that we might turn off the lights in the Chamber and have the debate in the dark, but that might have challenged a few of us who are not capable of eating enough carrots to read our notes in the dark.

This is a serious debate and, as I say, I have taken it as a learning experience. I did not realise that 65 places in the United Kingdom are classified as dark skies places. That is interesting, because it is difficult to become so classified. I am pleased that, if I were going to be in Cornwall on Saturday, I would be able to go to Jamaica Inn, which I have visited previously. For the princely sum of £15, I could get a meal and look at the skies both before and after it. As a vegetarian, I have to say that I hope it puts on vegetarian options as well as what seemed to be a carvery, otherwise it will not be able to attract me there again. It is important that we celebrate the night sky and teach our children about astronomy and the wonder of the sky, which some of us take far too readily for granted.

This is clearly a consensual debate—we would all like to share in such experiences—but I have some questions for the Minister, just to keep her on her toes. First, do we intend to increase the number of applications to be a dark sky place? As I said, getting accepted is quite a laborious process—the application form is some 100 pages long—so perhaps we can help places that would otherwise fall by the wayside to do that.

Secondly, I am told that Plymouth is in the process of installing LED street lights, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned. Not only is that great for the environment, but it will save the city about £1 million—now there is a reason why it should be done. What is the Government’s programme in that respect? I know that is a local authority responsibility, but if they are serious about this, the Government could take a lead and encourage local authorities that are thinking of installing LED lights—it is all about them pointing down rather than out and up—to do so. That would be a good progressive policy for any Government. How is the Minister helping?

Thirdly, how are we working with different organisations? I declare an interest as a long-standing member of the CPRE. It is good that it has issued awards for dark sky initiatives. It would be interesting to know how the Government links into those awards and works with such organisations.

Fourthly, it is relevant for us to look at the idea of dark sky parks and it is interesting that Cornwall is leading the way in that regard, but I am not sure that I fully understand them, so perhaps the Government will provide some education. Those parks are crucial in encouraging people to come into the countryside not just for day visits—for walks, cycle rides and so on—but to experience a different lifestyle in the evening. It would help to have clarity about what a dark sky park is.

Last but not least, will the Minister say something about how we deal with artificial light? As I say, I always get people coming to me who are worried about the lights being turned off at night. They feel somewhat threatened because of crime and because they have got used to having street lights. It would be interesting, because I had not really understood this, to hear about whether we can declare light a statutory nuisance where it is oppressive and affects people’s ability to get to sleep at night. Most councils now turn lights off at night to stop energy being wasted. Can we do that earlier and save more money? Can light be declared a statutory nuisance? From reading the Library briefing, it seems that doing so is quite a complicated process.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall. This is an interesting topic that catches the imagination of people of all ages, and we may all be able to do a bit more about it in our areas. I represent Stroud, which includes part of the Cotswolds, and I will certainly consider whether we ought to look at dark sky status to encourage people to look at the night sky. I look forward to hearing how the Minister answers all those questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The basis for the roll-out of the cull was the randomised badger culling trials carried out under the previous Labour Government. Those trials showed that there would be a reduction in the disease through a badger cull. Indeed, research carried out earlier this summer by Christl Donnelly has confirmed that there is a 58% reduction in the disease in cattle in Gloucester and a 21% reduction in Somerset. That is within the range we would expect, based on the RBCTs.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

In calling the shadow Minister, I hope the House will want to join me in congratulating the hon. Gentleman, who in the few years when he was out of the House acquired a doctorate in rural economy.

[Dr Drew]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I can dine out on that for a few more days.

I hear what the Minister says, but now that the culls are coming to an end, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 33,000 badgers were caught and dispatched in the roll-out. Is he seriously telling me that we will not test a significant proportion of those badgers so that we can at least have some scientific efficacy and know that there is some sense in what the Government are trying to do, even though Labour Members totally oppose it?

[George Eustice]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier answer, he would know that I said precisely that we want to monitor trends in this disease, which is why we are starting to collect and test a sample of badgers to develop these protocols. A lot of post-mortem analysis was done during the RBCTs, and we know from that—it was not conclusive—that the typical prevalence rate of the disease in the badger population in the high-risk area is 30%.