Exotic Pets Trade

Debate between Gregory Campbell and Angela Smith

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[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.

Treasury Support for UK Science

Debate between Gregory Campbell and Angela Smith

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that any fiscal levers designed to improve the research profile of UK science should be maintained.

It is worth mentioning that according to a study by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, every £1 of public investment secures an increase of between £1.13 and £1.60 in private funding. The importance of public funding for science is underlined by comparisons with our international competitors. The comparisons are not flattering—indeed, since the mid-1980s, our investment in science and innovation has fallen behind, leaving us sixth in the G7 for overall spending and last overall for public investment alone. South Korea enjoys public and private investment in science equivalent to 3.6% of GDP—no wonder it looks likely that South Korea, rather than Forgemasters in Sheffield, will be making the pressure vessels for our nuclear power stations—and in Germany and the USA, the figure is 2.8%. Here in the UK, the figure stands at just 1.7%.

We have punched above our weight, but it is clear that that cannot continue. Comparatively low levels of investment in research and development risk losing any competitive advantage we have over other innovation leaders who are investing more. As we all know, our economic productivity has already fallen by at least 15% from a pre-financial crisis position of steady growth. International studies demonstrate impressive and positive impacts on productivity from increased scientific research and development profiles, and it is clear that our 1.7% GDP investment rate is causing problems.

I acknowledge, of course, that the Government ring-fenced funding during the last Parliament and that that decision helped to keep safe £1.2 billion of private sector investment, but it is also true that the cash limit on research and development represented a real-terms cut of around £l billion. Although that decrease has been weathered in the short-term, if extended, it risks serious damage not just to our science base, but to the economy itself. If this Government and this Chancellor are serious about rebalancing the economy and closing the productivity gap—as a northern MP, I include the northern powerhouse in that—we need to see robust and secure funding plans for science put in place. How can we hope to become, as the Chancellor wants, the highly skilled, highly advanced economy with a healthy export profile and a healthy balance of payments if we allow our science base to slide further down the international league tables?

As we come to the all-important comprehensive spending review, we need to see the Chancellor’s warm words matched with a commitment in the review to tackling the underfunding of science in our economy.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate and on making a powerful speech. She talks about the forthcoming spending review. Does she agree that we would like to see more than just words about one nation science? The Minister and his colleagues should liaise with the devolved legislatures across the UK, particularly on universities, so that one nation science becomes the reality, rather than just a soundbite.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I agree that wherever in the UK a university is, if it is demonstrating real expertise in a scientific discipline and it comes up with good, robust proposals that are approved by its peers in the scientific community, it should benefit from an equitable spread of funding for research and development.

I conclude by asking the Minister for assurances about future public funding for our science and research base. First, will he commit to maintaining the ring fence for Government science spending over the next period, and will the Treasury fund real-terms protection of the science budget? We need funding stability, and we need to encourage business confidence. We also need to maximise our capital investment. I know that the capital budget has been settled, but too many science facilities remain under-utilised, which is wasteful and damaging to our economic growth ambitions. We need to align capital and resource investment to maximise the return, but we also need to rebuild our science base, as I have already pointed out. Will the Minister therefore also commit to an ambition to increase spending on science when sustained economic growth returns to the economy? Such a commitment in the CSR will send out the right signals to investors and scientists everywhere and ensure confidence that the UK is determined to use its science base to build economic success.

The Minister might also like to comment on the need for a broad spectrum of public investment in scientific infrastructure, from lab bench through to mid and large facilities. Equally, it would be welcome if he commented on the principle of allocating scientific funding according to a gold standard, based on independent expert peer review of research. That was the point I was trying to make to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell).

Finally, it would be reassuring to hear the Minister acknowledge the importance of curiosity-driven fundamental research. It is easy to understand the importance of applied scientific research, but some of our greatest achievements—scientific and economic—came from fundamental research. Laser technology is a good example of that and I am sure everyone can think of other examples. Although private investment is important to increasing our science research base, without adequate public support we will see that investment increasingly put at risk. Already we are falling behind our competitors, and in today’s world to stand still is to fall behind.

Today’s debate has been heavily supported by the royal societies and the universities, which I thank for their help and interest, and by numerous organisations spanning food and drink, pharmaceuticals and health. From the British Medical Association and Arthritis Research UK through to the Food and Drink Federation, the interest in the debate has been immense. That all emphatically underlines the sheer extent of the reach of science—I have tried to convey that in this debate—and thus its importance to the economy.

The debate, in title and in application, demanded a response from a Treasury Minister. The fact that the Chancellor’s ministerial team chose to bypass the opportunity to talk about science goes against the spirit of Westminster Hall debates and is deeply disappointing. No blame is apportioned to the Minister here now—we are glad to see him here—but where is the Treasury Minister? The Minister for Universities and Science can do more than repeat the speech—good as it was—that he gave in response to the excellent and well attended debate on this topic that was recently brought to the House by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). After all, it is official Government policy to support science. They have developed a science and innovation strategy, which states that

“capital investment alone is not sufficient to ensure our research infrastructure is able to continue to deliver world class outputs. We recognise that our science base requires adequate resource funding, and will give full consideration to these requirements when we take a decision at the Spending Review next year.”

On the basis of that statement, I call on the Minister not only to ensure that Treasury Ministers are made aware of today’s debate, but to commit to being an ambassador for science to the Treasury. He needs to go out there and make the case for science funding. I look forward to his response.

Energy Intensive Industries

Debate between Gregory Campbell and Angela Smith

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is privilege to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on his lucid explanation of the case for more Government support for energy intensive industries.

My constituency plays host to Tata Speciality Steels, Naylor Industries plc, which is a ceramics manufacturer specialising in clay pipes, and Wavin, which also manufactures clay pipes and lies a bit further to the west of the constituency. We are home to a paper mill at Oughtibridge, which is unfortunately due to close in 2015, ending a 140-year history of paper making on that site. My constituency is also home to British Glass, and I am very proud about that.

Manufacturing represented 12% of national output in 2011 and 8% of employment. In my constituency, 14% of output was generated by manufacturing, which accounted for 11.8% of local employment. Manufacturing therefore still matters in my constituency and in south Yorkshire. The big manufacturing employers in my constituency, in steel and ceramics, are also high energy users, and it is estimated that about a third of their production costs relate to energy use. My work as an MP is about not only talking up manufacturing and everything that is needed to support it, but making the case to the Government on how they can help to secure cost-competitiveness in a global context. For many such industries, energy costs are a key factor.

What are the facts on energy costs for high-end users? Tata Steel stated on 2 December that wholesale electricity year-ahead prices are 70% and 45% higher than in Germany and France respectively. Policy-driven taxes and levies for the most intensive users were 2.5 and 6.5 times higher than in Germany and France respectively in 2011. The scale of difference is clearly large enough to turn profit to loss and to send out negative signals to potential investors.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On that point, there is a large company in my constituency whose parent company, which is overseas, is constantly reviewing its overheads and the bottom line, which, for many, is the cost structure. Where such companies see the opportunity for reduced costs overseas, there is the serious possibility of their relocating.

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. BASF pointed out only a couple of weeks ago that there is a real risk of losing at least 10% of European manufacturing capacity to the US, because of the much cheaper energy costs, but we will not go into that debate this morning.

On taxes and levies, the British Ceramics Confederation has pointed out that the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s analysis shows climate-related charges are already 19% of the base load price, and that will rise to 47% in 2020. The Engineering Employers Federation states that the Government’s estimates indicate that industrial electricity prices will have increased by 70% by 2030. Moreover, Tata Steel is clear that the green levy with the greatest impact today is the renewables obligation, which, along with small-scale feed-in tariffs, will cost £10.50 per megawatt-hour in the year from April 2014, which is an increase of more than 100% in three years. Tata also points out that many steel makers in Europe will either be completely exempt from the charge or have their charge capped at €0.50 per megawatt-hour. There is clearly a serious problem here for such industries in the UK; spiralling energy costs, compounded with myriad taxes and levies, are threatening our ability to compete, even within the EU.

The British Ceramic Confederation points out that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, some of its manufacturers operate some of the most energy-intensive processes in the UK, and that several companies have already relocated to Germany and France, with electricity costs cited as a key reason. Even more worrying is the real risk that the current tax regime will do nothing to lower emissions globally if, as the confederation suggests, manufacturing focus is encouraged by costs to emerge in less regulated and less energy-efficient factories abroad. Carbon leakage is therefore a real threat. There is a great irony here, because energy intensive industries are making a huge effort to improve energy efficiency and thereby cut their costs. Tata uses 40% less energy today to produce the same amount of steel as it did in 1975. That is a 40% cut in energy costs as a result of its energy efficiency measures. Ceramics industries have been heavily involved in trying to improve their processes. Naylor Industries in my constituency continually strives to reduce costs by improving energy efficiency.

In summary, it is clear that we need reform of the current system of green taxes and levies, because of the risk of losing capacity, either to the EU or elsewhere, with the linked risk of carbon leakage. However, let me be absolutely clear: I have not, as yet, come across one industrialist who disagrees with the principle of green taxation. Everyone understands that a well-designed taxation system has a role to play in stimulating growth of the low-carbon economy, but that process has to be balanced with the critical need to avoid damaging the cost-effectiveness of the industrial base.

Our energy intensive manufacturers are important in their own right; I know that because I come from a family who have been involved in steel making for at least four generations. Such manufacturers are even more important given that the industries that we are talking about have a key role to play in providing components for the low-carbon economy—a point often overlooked by critics of the industries. Technical ceramics are used for nuclear, wind and solar generation. Clay pipes are 100% recyclable and have an incredibly long life. It takes 1,000 tonnes of steel of six different grades to produce each offshore wind turbine. The steel exterior for the Nissan Leaf electric vehicle was developed and produced in the UK by Tata Steel. Last but not least, the polyurethane foam insulation developed by BASF saves 233 tonnes of carbon over its lifetime for every tonne used in its production.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked, how should the Government act to remedy the problem? It is worth listing the array of schemes in play, or due to come into play soon: the climate change levy; small-scale feed-in tariffs; the emissions trading scheme; the renewables obligation; the carbon floor price; the energy company obligation; the carbon reduction commitment; and contracts for difference. We also have the aggregates levy and the landfill tax, but both are well embedded, and nobody would touch them. I might not even have included all the schemes on that list, but the point is made.

For industry, the green tax landscape is burdensome in two key ways: there is the cost, and the bureaucratic tangle involved in ensuring compliance. For example, one business in my constituency employs a full-time, highly skilled individual simply to ensure that it meets all its obligations on green tax. The Government have committed to the red tape challenge; this is a clear red tape challenge that needs to be dealt with. That individual could be employed to improve energy efficiency in the plant instead.

I repeat: what is to be done? Industry has a few ideas and key demands. First, it wants a level playing field for European and non-European competitors on climate-related taxes and levies, to ensure that world-class companies in the UK can remain internationally competitive. EEF pointed out that an assessment of that could take place within the context of the fourth carbon budget review.

Secondly, industries need to see the detail of the promised exemption of ceramics and other industries from the full cost of the climate change levy from next year. The autumn statement would be a good opportunity to provide that detail, as well as detail about how the Government will negotiate a way through without falling foul of state aid rules. In addition, the expected change in guidelines means that the Government have an opportunity to exempt such industries from the renewables obligation and small-scale feed-in tariffs. EEF and the British Ceramic Confederation make reference to the impact of those two taxes on their members. Industries also want the £250 million package moulded around the ETS and the CFP to be in place for the duration of the latter policy, until 2030, and they want the value of that compensation linked to the upwards trajectory, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The contract for difference worries energy-intensive industries, too. They look for comprehensive exemption for industries, so that they can remain competitive.

Finally, both the steel and ceramic sectors point out that the Government could do a great deal for their members if capital allowances were increased for a wider range of energy-efficient technologies, so that a much higher proportion of the green taxes raised went back into such investments. I could also make the point about including a wider range of industries in the state aid guidelines. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that they make that case to the EU.

The Government face a bewildering range of choices. They ought to consider two more radical proposals before making up their mind. Perhaps we need a consolidation of all the taxes and levies, or to simplify the system, to reduce the bureaucratic burden on our manufacturing companies and make it easier to work out what the cost burden should be and how best to compensate industries that are at risk of losing that competitive edge. Transparency and good environmental tax design could be achieved simply by revising and reforming the complexity of the current regime. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Perhaps we could scrap the carbon floor price altogether—let us just get rid of it. It is a unilateral tax that is projected to pull in more than £2 billion for the Treasury by 2020, but it threatens to undermine the competitiveness of our key industries.