Draft REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to have you in the Chair, Sir Graham. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 April and amend UK REACH, the UK regulation on the regulation, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, which is one of the main pieces of legislation that manages chemicals in Great Britain.

In line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, UK REACH retains both the fundamental approach and key principles of the EU REACH regulation, with its aims of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment. The statutory instrument introduces two changes. I can assure the Committee from the outset that those changes do not affect the key principles and that UK REACH will continue to provide the highest levels for protection of human health and the environment.

First, the SI amends the deadlines in article 127P(4B) of UK REACH for the submission of information to the Health and Safety Executive, extending them by three years. That applies to grandfathered registrations and chemicals being imported from the EU under the transitional arrangements. Industry will have to submit technical information—that is, the full data package—on the hazards and risks of substances by 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030, depending on the tonnage and toxicity of the chemical. Those dates are changed from 27 October 2023, 27 October 2025 and 27 October 2027 respectively. The most toxic and hazardous chemicals will be in the first tranche that will be required to be registered.

The changes are needed as part of my Department’s work to address the significant potential cost of obtaining or accessing the full hazard information required to meet UK REACH registration requirements. Those costs are estimated to be between £1.3 billion and £3.5 billion, which represents a major concern for the industry as it will be a significant financial undertaking for businesses in Great Britain transitioning to UK REACH. We recognise business concerns, which is why we are working really closely with business and engaging with all stakeholders to develop an alternative transitional registration model for UK REACH.

We are working with the industry and non-governmental organisation stakeholders to find a solution that will reduce the costs associated with obtaining hazard information while still ensuring that they are responsible for the safe use of chemicals throughout the supply chain. The model we are developing aims to reduce the need for businesses to access or obtain expensive EU REACH data packages and will place more emphasis on improving our understanding of the uses and exposures of chemicals in the Great Britain context—that is, on making it much more specific to our market and our needs. Extending the deadlines will provide certainty to industry so that it can avoid making unnecessary investments in obtaining data while the Government continue to develop and implement an alternative approach.

The second change is that the SI will move the timelines for the HSE to complete its compliance checks to ensure that the information submitted by industry is of sufficient quality. The changes will now align with the extended deadlines for submitting data to the HSE. That is necessary because the deadlines for compliance checking, as set down in article 41(5) of UK REACH, would otherwise fall before the amended dates for submitting the relevant information. Basically, it just links everything together.

The HSE will now have to complete its compliance checks by 27 October 2027, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2035, corresponding to the three extended submission deadlines. This is the first time we have prepared an SI using the powers to amend REACH that are set out in schedule 21 to the Environment Act 2021. Some colleagues present served on the Bill Committee for that Act and will I am sure remember that.

We have followed all the safeguards that we attached to the powers. In doing so, we sought and obtained consent from the devolved Administrations of Wales and Scotland; consulted widely with our stakeholders and interested parties on our plans to extend the submission deadlines; and published a consistency statement, as required by the 2021 Act. Our aim was to provide the Committee with the necessary assurance that extending the submission deadlines is consistent with article 1 of UK REACH. We will continue to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Am I right in thinking that the redesign of the registration process that my hon. Friend is currently considering, which the three-year extension will allow her to bring into play, will not diminish the levels of care for the environment or, indeed, for human health, but rather enhance them, and that the whole purpose of the redesign is to do that?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is very astute. In no way will we reduce any of the protections—we have to make a statement to say that we will not do that—and this change does give us an opportunity to work with the industry to look at the kind of data it provides and its knowledge of the chemicals, as well as to focus on how we use those chemicals and the actual exposure for our own population, because it is different in different countries. It should provide us with a really focused understanding and knowledge of the chemicals that we place on the market—of course, each company is responsible for the chemicals it places on the market.

As I said, we laid the statement, as required by the Act, to provide the Committee with the necessary assurance that extending the submission deadlines is consistent with article 1 of UK REACH. We will continue to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment.

As we outlined in the consistency statement that accompanied the public consultation, our assessment demonstrates that overall the UK REACH regime will still be able to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment because of the information on and knowledge of chemicals registered under EU REACH that is available to HSE and Great Britain registrants; because importers from the EU will continue to receive EU REACH-compliant safety data sheets from their EU suppliers, which will enable them to identify and apply appropriate risk-management measures; and because of the HSE’s ability to seek risk management data from other sources—there are sources other than the EU system—if necessary, as it did when acting as a competent authority under EU REACH. That seeking could include things such as calls for evidence and using data from EU REACH and other relevant sources that can provide Great Britain with specific hazard and exposure information.

Alongside the public consultation, we also published a full impact assessment on extending the deadlines, which I am pleased to say was awarded a green fit-for-purpose rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has formally considered this SI without comment. The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, and the devolved Administrations were engaged in its development and are content. I am confident that the provisions in the regulations mean that we will continue to ensure the highest levels of protection for human health and the environment.

UK Canals and Waterways

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Michael Fabricant]

That is a fantastic example from my hon. Friend. Those of us familiar with canals know that type of art, with beautifully, vividly painted flowers on coal scuttles and buckets. An ugly bucket can be transformed into a thing of beauty. I have friends who live some distance from canals who have examples of that work in their own homes. That is a first-rate example of how the canals generate income for others and generate business in the economy as a whole.

I hope that I have left all my colleagues here in no doubt about the importance of and value created by our waterways and those who manage them. They are undoubtedly a national treasure and a critical part of our national infrastructure. At the heart of the trust’s success has been the connections it has forged with so many communities along the length of its waterways. We have just heard a first-rate example of that from my hon. Friend. The trust has inspired many to volunteer, and we have heard about that, too. In the past year, the trust’s volunteers gave 700,000 hours, as well as hundreds of partner groups and canal adoptions. Those amazing individuals contribute so much to making the waterways network safe, clean and attractive places for us all to enjoy.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Fabricant]

In a moment. I will just carry on a little bit, if he will forgive me.

On behalf of everyone here, I want to thank the volunteers. But they can only be a small part of the answer. The sustainable future of our canals depends on a substantial continuing investment in the core infrastructure that underpins our historical waterways network. Caring for waterways is costly.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray]

I am a huge supporter of canals, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have the Kennet and Avon to the south of my constituency and the Thames and Severn to the north, linked soon, I hope, by the Wilts and Berks canal, so we are right in the middle of the southern canal network. What my hon. Friend says about volunteers is absolutely right. Does he agree that the greatest thing about the canal network is that all the work that has been done across the country is largely funded not by the Government, but by volunteers and the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which makes a huge and important financial contribution. The network is not Government funded; it is volunteer funded.

[Michael Fabricant]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that valuable point. Something like 75% of the Canal & River Trust’s funding is from sources other than the Government.

The problem is that our canal system is ageing and is made up of more than 10,000 individual assets, many of which date back 250 years. Many have a high consequence of failure; they are deteriorating and need regular maintenance and repair. That is exacerbated by the impact of more extreme weather events, which make them even more vulnerable. However, it is their age that gives them their beauty and attraction for so many people. Given the serious potential risks posed to neighbouring homes and businesses by the deterioration of reservoirs, high embankments, aqueducts and culverts—imagine what would happen if any of them burst—it is vital that there is stable and sufficient investment in the network to make these assets more resilient and to reduce the possible threat to lives, homes and businesses.

Here is the important bit. The Canal & River Trust receives about a quarter of its funding from the Government, under an agreement secured when it was formed in 2012, and that has been vital in underpinning its progress. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is undertaking a review of its grant for the period beyond March 2027, when the agreement comes to an end. A decision was due in July, but there have inevitably been delays, owing partly to covid and partly to a little turbulence in the Conservative party.

Although it is right that sufficient time be taken to judge the importance of the waterways properly, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the revised timetables for the review decision, as the uncertainty is causing great concern to users of the waterways and will soon start to hinder the trust’s ability to plan for the future. It has many important long-term projects to deliver, which could affect the safety of so many people. When will a funding announcement be made?

It should also be noted that the trust’s grant is declining in real terms and is now worth only a little over half of what British Waterways received prior to 2008. It is also fixed for the six years from 2021 to 2027, so the trust is suffering a significant shortfall at a time when many of its costs are rising by significantly more than the 10% headline inflation rate. Roughly £50 million a year is a very small amount for the Government to contribute for such a huge range of benefits.

At the same time, the trust’s wide range of risks, obligations and legal liabilities is growing, in part due to the impact of climate change. The network is subject to more extreme weather events, to which it is acutely vulnerable. That poses a potential threat to the many neighbouring homes and businesses. The risk has dramatically changed, even in the past 10 years. The level of spend now required was not anticipated when the trust was first established, but it must nevertheless be addressed.

Nature and Climate Declaration

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for a nature and climate declaration.

Sir James, I am not sure—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. This is the second week in which people keep addressing me as “Sir James”; unfortunately, Her Majesty did not knight me, so I am just Mr Gray, if that is all right.

[Derek Thomas]

Sorry, Mr Gray; I exceeded my area of responsibility.

I am not sure that I have brought any subject to the House without having been petitioned by a constituent. In this instance, I have been petitioned by many of my constituents and by many town and parish councils. They have urged me to raise the issue of nature and climate, and they have been particularly keen to secure my backing for the nature and climate declaration.

I do know for sure what my fellow parliamentarians got up to over the weekend, but I suspect that many of us attended church services in our constituencies to mark the beginning of COP27. I was pleased to join members of the congregation at Madron church on Saturday afternoon as the church bells were rung out to welcome COP27. The service began with a reading of an old and simple psalm:

“The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it, you have founded them.”

It seems to me that those words are a helpful reminder that we are simply caretakers and guardians of the planet we are so fortunate to live on.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate at a time when the United Nations are meeting in Egypt for COP27. I am pleased to contribute, in some small way, to the effort to get back on track on the road to net zero following the severe disruption of the covid pandemic, the race to build back after it, and the current devastating impact of Russia’s evil war against Ukraine and the resulting global crisis in energy and food security.

This debate and the declaration itself support efforts to deliver on a commitment that we made in the Paris agreement, which was ratified in 2016. We committed to affirm

“the importance of education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information and co-operation at all levels on the matters addressed in this Agreement.”

I thank the Zero Hour team, who have built up support for the nature and climate declaration over the past month. I particularly thank Ron, who cannot be here today due to traffic and transport difficulties, but I also thank Amy and Oliver, who are here; it has been such a pleasure to work with them. Their hard graft prepared the ground for the launch of the nature and climate declaration in this place last week.

This is democracy at its best, because the nature and climate declaration has been signed by nearly 2,000 UK politicians from all parties, including more than 1,500 councillors. The first of its kind, the all-party declaration has been signed by councillors, elected mayors, peers, MPs and Members of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. It recognises and supports the UK Government’s efforts on climate change and biodiversity, and recommends that the UK Government deal with what it calls the critical environmental risks to Britain’s heritage, communities and future prosperity by doing three things: fulfilling our fair share of emissions reductions to meet the 1.5°C target; reversing nature loss by 2030; and delivering an integrated environmental protection and decarbonisation plan. I take this issue and the declaration seriously for a number of reasons, not least because all three recommendations are in line with UK Government policy and should therefore be welcomed and accepted by the Minister.

British citizens understand that there needs to be a shift towards a healthier and greener way of life—in fact, when I stood for election in 2019, that was the idea I stood on: to work for a healthier and greener west Cornwall—but they also recognise that this aim needs to be achieved both at home and abroad. We all recognise that we have a part to play; the problem is that net zero and 2050 are not expressions that particularly resonate with the average human being, although most people want us to treat the planet better than we do now and few would deny the sizeable benefits for everyone if we focused a little more on what nature recovery actually looks like and how efforts to decarbonise will improve day-to-day living.

In recent years the Government and Parliament have made great strides in getting to grips with the sheer challenge and opportunity of delivering on environmental protection and decarbonisation, but we have failed to clearly articulate what this means for our constituents. We get too hung up on what we mean by net zero by 2050 and do not talk nearly enough about the positive benefits of improving our homes, or about the creation of the skills to do that and of skills in farming and clean energy. We do not talk nearly enough about how important farms are for food production that enhances nature and captures carbon. We do not talk nearly enough about how energy can be secure and affordable if we use a natural resource such as underground heat, the sun, the wind and tide-generated energy.

That is why I want to briefly concentrate my thoughts on how delivering on the declaration’s three recommendations is not about inflicting hardship, or placing a straitjacket on our constituencies and communities, but rather about delivering levelling up in real terms—levelling up in skills, health equality, food and energy security, mental wellbeing, and knowledge and educational attainment. I will set out how the integration of environmental protections and decarbonisation will deliver those public benefits.

When we have debated net zero previously, we have tended to alienate farmers by somehow blaming them for our carbon footprint and loss of biodiversity. I agree that over recent decades we have hungered for cheap food at the expense of the natural environment. From visiting farms in west Cornwall, however, I know that it is not just possible to do food production, enhancing the natural environment and decarbonisation in harmony; they are mutually dependent. There is not time to go into the full detail now, but the use of herbal leys, tree planting and cattle grazing has led to enriched biodiversity, improved soil health and reduced run-off.

Farms that work with nature have an immense potential for productivity and high-quality food while securing resilience in the landscape and creating a robust environment that will cope better with climate change. Farming with nature can reduce reliance on imported inputs and rebuild biodiversity by creating habitats and space for nature at scale. Farming with nature builds complexity and diversity in denuded farmland, which can sequester vast amounts of carbon and create opportunities for education, community and social recovery.

There has been considerable debate recently about food security and the Government’s intention in relation to the environmental land management scheme. For what it is worth, I would fully support the Government if they decided to channel a far greater share of ELM towards our farms to support food production, environmental health, environmental protection, decarbonisation and food security, but there are other ways to rapidly increase environmental protection and decarbonisation hand in hand. For example, there is an ambition to ramp up clean energy and clean heating, as we heard earlier from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions.

Cornwall is fast becoming known for geothermal, which has the potential to generate energy for Britain’s homes. Sadly, because of the way the Government organise their contracts for difference auction, emerging renewable energy technologies such as geothermal, and to an extent floating offshore wind, are not getting a fighting chance. I am aware that those developing the geothermal potential have submitted written evidence to the Government’s recent call for evidence. They suggest avenues for supporting geothermal that include a new deep geothermal renewable heat incentive, a ringfenced pot for geothermal in the fifth CfD auction round, and significant reform to the current planning process. I am hopeful that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will look carefully at the case being made for emerging renewable technologies.

Cornwall is also leading the way on community ground-source heating. Kensa, a world-leading Cornish company, has now completed ground array installations for the first private retrofit street. Residents’ properties will benefit from low-cost ground-source heating, which does not require gas or oil.

In my job I am privileged, as many of us are, to see all sorts of examples of how we can integrate environmental protection with decarbonisation. I focus particularly on food and energy, which is where the pressure on households is today. I cannot tell Members how keen farmers and businesses in my constituency are to access support to clad their barns, warehouses and workshops with solar panels and to install battery storage. Penzance dry dock, which is also represented in the Public Gallery, is the UK’s oldest working dry dock and builds and retrofits ships and boats for maritime demands. That is an energy-intensive industry that looks to the Government to enable clean energy solutions in buildings and workshops.

The Government have nothing to fear from the declaration. Our communities are ahead in many ways. For example, Penzance Town Council recently committed to the future generations pledge, ensuring that every decision made, at every level, passes the good ancestor test that asks how each decision benefits our children’s children and makes their lives at least as good as our own.

There is so much more I would like to include in my speech, but I do not get any impression that the Government lack ambition or commitment in this policy area. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said as much on Monday at COP27, and reiterated it in the Chamber this afternoon. He said:

“The world came together in Glasgow with one last chance to create a plan that would limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees…By honouring the pledges we made in Glasgow, we can turn our struggle against climate change into a global mission for new jobs and clean growth. And we can bequeath our children a greener planet and a more prosperous future. That’s a legacy we could be proud of.”

The UK Government are, though, rightly under pressure to deliver on their commitment and assurances. It would be remiss of me not to refer to the fact that the Government missed their own deadline for publishing the legally binding targets required by the Environment Act 2021. Will the Minister give an indication of when we can expect those targets to be published?

Another frustration for Members in this place is that Government Departments do not necessarily work together towards the same goals. The Climate Change Committee has been instrumental in highlighting the issue and setting targets for each Department; however, we recognise that inconsistency across Government is a risk to achieving environment protection and decarbonisation.

Landfill Sites: Odour

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Aaron Bell]

I am sorry to hear that my right hon. Friend is having similar issues in her constituency. I agree that we should not be relying on World Health Organisation standards of danger to health as our minimum standard. We should take residents’ concerns much more seriously. I believe odour can cause significant mental health concerns for residents.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My constituents in Royal Wootton Bassett suffer badly from the Crapper & Sons Landfill Ltd site—the name, incidentally, is indicative—next to that great town. When I visited them last week, they told me that the rain has made the odour much worse. The site operators admit to the odour and are taking steps to put it right. The real way to put it right is by capping it off, which they are starting to do, and by reducing the amount we put into landfill. They are now bringing in innovative ways of recycling, reducing landfill, so that soon the people of Wootton Bassett will no longer suffer from the appalling smell, as they have for the past year or so.

[Aaron Bell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know of that case, as my father-in-law lives nearby in the village of Purton. Capping the sites off, as will eventually happen at Walley’s Quarry, offers residents some hope in the end. I recognise that operators are employing better technology all the time, but that is no consolation to people enduring the smell now.

I asked my constituents to contribute their thoughts and I will quote from some of their emails. Some constituents report “retching” and feeling sick from the odour, with others describing feeling as though they can taste the smell and it is catching the back of their throat. One described the smell as

“a blight on our community.”

Many residents report that they can identify the smell further away, sometimes in the centre of Newcastle, which is bad for its nightlife and day activities, or further north in Wolstanston and Bradwell. Other constituents highlight that they feel unable to use their garden, to open their windows or to hang washing outside. Most worrying are the cases of those for whom the smell is persistent inside their homes. The odour is also worrying for those with existing breathing difficulties and conditions such as asthma. They believe it is making their health worse.

I myself smelt the tell-tale “rotten egg” odour at times during my canvassing and campaigning for the general election, though it was notable that residents on the same estate had vastly differing responses to the smell on the same day.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher; I do not think I have had the pleasure of doing so before. I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) on bringing this debate to our attention. I know that his predecessor worked hard locally with the Environment Agency and other partners to try to identify a solution for the problems that he raises, and I commend him for standing up vociferously for his constituency. It is absolutely the right thing to do.

I appreciate concerns about material entering landfill, and I have stressed in many other recent debates on landfill and incineration—it seems to be flavour of the month—that the Government’s attention remains very firmly on reduce, reuse and recycle so that we can level up the country and move towards a much more circular economy with greater resource efficiency. My hon. Friend referred to that and acknowledged that we are moving in that direction. The measures set out in our ambitious resources and waste strategy and in our landmark Environment Bill, which will receive its Second Reading tomorrow in the Chamber, will minimise the amount of waste that reaches the lower levels of the waste hierarchy. That of course includes landfill, because that is right at the end of the chain.

[James Gray]

Does the Minister agree that Crapper & Sons Landfill is a classic example of what she is talking about? Of the 280,000 tonnes that arrives on its site every year, only 95,000 tonnes goes into landfill. In other words, 185,000 tonnes is recycled onsite.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point; I thought he was going to make a negative intervention, but it was positive. The example he raises is the direction we are going in, and I commend the company on that figure. By reducing the quantity of waste through using it in other ways—recycling and all those things—we will end up with less going into landfill, and that is the intention.

The Environment Bill contains a whole range of measures, including a deposit return scheme and an extended producer responsibility scheme, and it will stipulate the much more consistent collection of waste, including food waste, by all our local authorities from the doorstep and from businesses. All those things will reduce waste.

TB in Cattle and Badgers

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on making a well-balanced and sensible speech, taking neither one side nor the other. I very much endorse her on mental health. This problem particularly affects places such as North Wiltshire, where 200 farms have been entirely closed down—many on several occasions—and entire herds slaughtered. The psychological effect on a farmer seeing his or her herd entirely slaughtered two or three times is horrendous.

[Ruth George]

Absolutely. Any of us who has had a pet put down knows how painful that can be, so a farmer having to put down a whole herd that they have built up does not bear thinking about. Bovine TB does not just have an emotional cost; it is also one of the greatest animal health threats to the UK. It costs the public more than £100 million a year in compensation, and it costs the farming industry about £50 million a year.

In Derbyshire, we are on the edge of bovine TB. Last year, 1,230 cattle were slaughtered in the county, compared with just 672 the previous year. The annual incidence rate in herds increased from 7.7% to 8.4%, mainly, I would argue, because in January 2018 the high-risk area of Derbyshire was reclassified as an edge area. The increase in cases was driven solely by the reclassified area, as the area that remained classified as edge area was reduced. In the new edge area, on the edge of the outbreaks, annual surveillance testing was replaced by six-monthly testing and the higher use of interferon gamma testing where TB-free status had been withdrawn. That replaced the skin tests, which we know are only 50% or 60% accurate, meaning that under those annual tests many more cattle go by undetected with TB. In 2018 in Derbyshire, 45% of infected cattle were identified by gamma reactor testing, compared with just 7% in 2017.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency report on TB in Derbyshire states that the interferon gamma test has a higher sensitivity than the skin test, so it discloses more infected cattle, often at an earlier stage, or those that may have been missed by the skin tests. In 2018, 2,400 tests were done, compared with 1,800 in 2017. This also applies to other areas, as gamma testing was introduced for edge areas from 1 April 2017. The number of new herd incidents fell slightly, from 4,700 in 2010 to 4,400 last year. More cattle are therefore being slaughtered but from a lower number of herds, with the average per herd increasing from 10 to 12. It is interesting that bovine tuberculosis has spread from areas with higher herd numbers to areas such as Derbyshire, where herd numbers have traditionally been much lower.

We come to the role that badgers play in the increase in bovine TB in Derbyshire. The APHA study states that, based on probability, 77% of infections come from badgers. However, only one case in 148 was confirmed to be definitely due to badgers. Alternative academic analysis suggests that between 75% and 94% of infections are caught from other cattle, not from badgers. It can appear as though badgers are being scapegoated while the evidence for residual infection within herds is being discounted.

Badgers are present throughout Derbyshire and on most farms. I pay tribute to farmers, who have been most helpful in the badger vaccination programme. However, testing last year of badgers killed on roads across Derbyshire by Professor Malcolm Bennett of the University of Nottingham found that only four out of 104 were infected with bovine TB—just 4%. It therefore seems surprising that they are deemed to account for 77% of cattle infections. Considering that the higher number and greater accuracy of tests has driven the increase in cases, it is surprising that only 5% of cases of bovine TB are deemed to be due to residual infection in a herd, especially when in 40% of all cases there had been a history of infection in the herd in the last three years.

[James Gray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ruth George]

I will have to make some progress, as there are several more speakers to come in. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point later.

It is acknowledged that the pattern of livestock markets facilitates the flow of cattle in Derbyshire from the high-risk area to the edge area and that the major risk to other edge areas adjacent to Derbyshire—Cheshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicester—is mostly via cattle movements. When we say we must look at all the reasons why cattle are contracting bovine tuberculosis, we must look at cattle movement and infection in a herd.

The size of the herd was also a major factor. Herds of under 50, which account for about half of all cattle herds in Derbyshire, had only a 3% risk of contracting bovine tuberculosis. That rose to 27% in herds of 200 to 350, and to 38% in the largest herds of 500-plus. It seems very odd that badgers would discriminate between small herds of cattle and large herds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wilson. There have been so many passionate contributions that, in winding up for the Scottish National party, I do not think I can mention them all; I presume that I have a limited amount of time as well. However, I will highlight three in particular.

I commend the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), who secured the debate, for her nuanced and evidence-led approach to this clearly very sensitive and emotional issue. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—this point was made by other Members from across the Chamber, and I commend them for that—mentioned the importance of making it clear that this is not a farmer versus badger issue. She gave alternatives to badger culling, which I am sure the Minister will be interested in pursuing the details of, if he was not aware of them already, because they sound like they are achieving some impressive results. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke of a human aspect that we must never forget: the devastating impact that this disease has on farmers, their families and the communities around them. There were numerous other contributions from other Members who spoke with passion and often from personal experience.

I suppose I should make it clear that, despite the fact that I am a Brock, I have no conflict of interest. In spite of the name, I have no relatives who are badgers and I know no badgers personally. I will admit, however, to a general liking for the creatures, who seem amiable enough. I certainly have the occasional visit from badgers in my garden in Edinburgh.

I was reading the British Veterinary Association’s website recently, as one does, and spotted a report about the badger culling areas of Gloucestershire, Somerset and Dorset, using data from 2013 to 2017. The BVA clearly considered that this report showed that culling was effective in controlling bovine tuberculosis, indicating a 55% drop in bovine TB incidents. On the face of it, that is clear evidence that the policy is working.

However, it struck me that this is the removal of a species from an area, which in itself raises obvious questions about whether an effective solution is necessarily the best solution and, perhaps more importantly, about the effect of taking an entire wild species out of an ecosystem. What does removing badgers from these localities do to biodiversity? Their diet is mainly earthworms and insects, I think, but they also clean up carrion and windfall fruit and perform other similar housekeeping duties. I am not an expert—we will have to ask someone else—but I assume that their burrowing and hunting habits help to till the soil and move nutrients. An ecologist could no doubt educate us on the benefits to a local ecosystem of having a brock or two in the area; I imagine that there are multiple benefits.

[James Gray]

The hon. Lady has, until now, been making a sensible speech. My memory from my upbringing in Scotland is that there was a scarce population of badgers —almost none at all. If she came down to Wiltshire, she would find a large number of badgers indeed. It is not one or two here and there; we are talking about dozens and dozens of setts absolutely crammed to the doors with ill badgers. These notions—the idea that there are one or two, and questions like: “aren’t they nice?”, “what about the biodiversity?” and “don’t they help till the soil?”—just show that she has absolutely no idea about what life is like in a badger area.

[Deidre Brock]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has greater experience of these things, given where he resides, but I assure him that there are significant brock populations now in Scotland. I will go on to speak about what is happening in Scotland around this issue.

Lastly on the point that I was making, I point to our experience of the effects of wiping out other species in large geographical areas, and to the fact that we often find conservation organisations trying to reintroduce the animals that we have hunted to extinction. England may continue down this road, and that is, to some extent, a matter for England to decide. However, it is worth remembering how much we criticise other nations for failing to protect their wildlife.

Red Squirrels: Potential Extinction

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak but, there being a little time available, I will do so briefly, largely because I serve on the Environmental Audit Committee, which is currently carrying out an investigation into invasive species. Of course, the grey squirrel is a classic example of what can happen when an invasive species arrives on these islands.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on securing this extremely important debate, and I listened very carefully to the contributions of other Members. We are unanimous in thinking that the red squirrel is a wonderful native creature, which we must do what we can to preserve. There is no question about that at all. I do not think that a single person would disagree, although I must admit that I rather agree with the flattering remarks made about the greys all through the debate—that we are stronger, more aggressive and bigger—but that is on a personal level, rather than on a squirrel level. I mention in passing an interesting point that so far no one has mentioned this morning. The House will be interested to know that Germans cannot pronounce the word squirrel; it is the only word in the English language that no German can pronounce. Rather curiously, we cannot pronounce the German word for squirrel either. That is a curious little fact that the House ought to know!

The Environmental Audit Committee is studying invasive species at the moment, including such exotic things as the floating pennywort, the American crayfish and all sorts of Asian wasps, as well as the grey squirrel. They all have one thing in common: once they are here, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. In the Environmental Audit Committee, we are looking at the degree to which we can control such species—for example, keeping them in one area—or whether extermination is better.

I had a very interesting time last year when I visited the island of South Georgia in Antarctica, where there has been an immensely successful operation to remove rats. Rats and mice were brought there by whalers over the centuries. Over the last couple of years, the South Georgia Heritage Trust has invested in the order of £10 million in using aerial dispersal of rat poison to eradicate the rat population entirely. As a result, we have seen a significant improvement in the pipit and other native species on the island of South Georgia. They also eradicated 10,000 reindeer, which were devastating the habitat that the native South Georgian population needed.

It has been interesting to hear the description of the Isle of Wight this morning; I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). We also heard of an island I did not know about in Wales from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke of Anglesey. These are islands. Although this is not exactly easy, as these things have to be carried out very carefully—biosecurity is enormously important, and the biosecurity going on to South Georgia was simply extraordinary, as we had to inspect every aspect of our luggage and clothes and so on to make sure that there was not a single possibility of any kind of invasive species getting on to the island—none the less, islands can be protected. It is reasonably straightforward and simple to make sure that we do.

The mainland of the United Kingdom is, of course, more difficult. A glance at the maps of the red squirrel population over the centuries and that of the grey squirrel over the last 150 years demonstrates how they move inexorably forward. I very strongly congratulate some of the initiatives that we have heard about this morning. There has been wonderful work done in Northumberland and elsewhere, where individual organisations have fought manfully—personfully—to make sure that they keep the grey squirrel at bay. They do wonderful work, and, in one or two places, they have forced the grey squirrel back, but it is pretty much an ad hoc operation. If they take their eye off the ball for one second, the grey squirrel will be right back to where it was before, and pushing further northwards, until such time as—as the motion for the debate says—we risk the extinction of the red squirrel. Unless we do something about it, that is what is going to happen, and we should be aware of that in this place. We have lost so many species over the centuries and within the next century or so there is a very real risk, if not a probability, of the total and utter eradication—extermination—of the entire red squirrel population in the United Kingdom, perhaps leaving aside pockets here and there.

We have not yet discussed the solutions, and perhaps the Minister will come on to that in a moment. There are the ad hoc solutions we have discussed and there are things we can do with regard to forestry and in individual areas to make sure that we preserve the pockets of red squirrels, but is that going to win in the long term? Are we going to preserve red squirrels? Are we certain that 500 years from now there will be a red squirrel population in the United Kingdom? I doubt very much that a single person in this Chamber or elsewhere this morning would swear on their lives that that would be the case, and I think it is extremely unlikely to be the case.

I hope that when the Minister addresses the matter she will consider the holistic solution described by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, which will not just preserve what we have but allow the progressive extermination of the invasive species that is the grey squirrel. It seems to me that unless we can find a way down the road—we are talking about many decades from now— of sending the grey squirrel back to where it came from, that is, the United States, and unless we exterminate it from the United Kingdom, it is extremely unlikely that we will keep the little blighters under control. All we have to do is to glance at South Georgia, where the rats and mice arrived with the whalers, absolutely ran over the entire island and destroyed the biodiversity of the island. Only by their eradication can we now preserve the very delicate balance of biodiversity in that island. Precisely the same applies here. The interesting and worthy projects that we have heard about are great, but we cannot be certain that they will work. There is only one way to be certain that we are going to keep the red squirrel for generations to come, and that is through finding means for the final eradication of the grey squirrel from these islands.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on securing the debate.

I am concerned that the squirrel is at risk of dying out. Several of the hon. Members who contributed today have left the debate. We need to be warriors if we want to protect red squirrels, and that includes staying to listen to all of the debate, which has been excellent and shows people’s passion for protecting this iconic native species. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland mentioned, Squirrel Nutkin has gone down in history, and I am just about old enough to remember Tufty from the road safety films that were shown in the ’70s. I believe Tufty has already reached the age of 65, so popular was he at pushing forward road safety—at some point he was replaced by the Green Cross Code Man.

The red squirrel is certainly a very special species. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) is unfortunately no longer in his place, but he knows the importance of the species. I grew up in Formby and, to be candid, I did not realise that grey squirrels existed until I came to London as a student—I could not see a single red squirrel anywhere, and there were grey squirrels all over the place. That is when I learned of the terrible impact that grey squirrels have had on our native species.

As has been pointed out, the red squirrel is protected by domestic legislation and is currently found in a number of strongholds across England, including the north of England and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). The red squirrel is also present in larger numbers in Scotland, and the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) quite rightly set out the great success of protection north of the border. There is also a limited population on Anglesey in Wales, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is no longer in his place, highlighted the projects undertaken there to increase the number of red squirrels. That is a devolved matter, but I am sure that hon. Members will recognise the contributions that we can make, which is why, as the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) pointed out, it was important that all four nations came together for the UK Squirrel Accord and to work with many non-governmental organisations, landowners and so on.

The red squirrel is under attack; not from humans, but from the grey squirrel. The grey squirrel is an invasive species from North America that has a significant impact on our native trees—broadleaves in particular—by stripping bark and eating bulbs, and on our protected species, including the red squirrel. The Government are committed to protecting and expanding red squirrel populations, and to tackling the threat that grey squirrels pose to them, particularly the tendency to spread squirrel pox, to which red squirrels are far more susceptible. Preserving biosecurity, including the elimination of non-native species, especially those that jeopardise our native species, is very important to us. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) rightly mentioned the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry, and I assure him that this Government are absolutely committed to doing what we can to eradicate such species.

I fear that that point was missed by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who tried to accuse us of being racist about squirrels. I have never heard such nonsense. I really think that he needs to go on an education tour in Cumbria to understand the importance of red squirrels and why they are so special to our nature.

[James Gray]

The Minister may move on to this so I might be picking up unreasonably on a slip of the tongue, but she talked about the “eradication” of invasive species, no doubt in the context of our current inquiry on the Environmental Audit Committee. Will she suggest that we might find ways not just of controlling but of eradicating the grey squirrel?

[Dr Coffey]

I think that I used the word “elimination,” which is the same. I agree that has to be our target, rather than just control.

We have made sure that strict protections are in place for those species. Regulations are in place and we need to ensure that they are effectively enforced in England and Wales, as well as at the UK border and in the offshore marine area. Similar legislation is being prepared by the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments.

The Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019 requires us to put in place management measures for widely spread invasive species, including the grey squirrel, that have been risk-assessed and found to be highly damaging. Management measures must be aimed at the eradication, population control or containment of the species concerned. Under the order, releasing listed invasive species back into the environment will be prohibited unless it is part of further control efforts authorised by a licence, although that is effectively already domestic law.

Grey squirrels have attracted much attention. As I said in response to a recent petition, rescue centres may continue to rescue and treat grey squirrels; they are not obliged to kill grey squirrels, but they cannot release them into the wild without a licence. When the order comes into force in the coming months, it will bring England’s approach to controlling the release of grey squirrels into line with that of the devolved Administrations, who also acknowledge the impact of the species.

The population decline of red squirrels, a species that was once common in England, is of significant concern to the Government and we want to continue to find ways to address it. The Forestry Commission undertakes a number of actions to protect red squirrels from the impact of grey squirrels, as outlined in the grey squirrel action plan for England. DEFRA, in partnership with the UK Squirrel Accord, has provided funding for work by the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop a fertility control method for grey squirrels. Although I am assured by officials that the research continues to show promise as a potentially effective and humane method of controlling grey squirrel numbers in the long term, I am conscious that it has been worked on for several years, and I do not want us to keep relying on it as the only way to tackle grey squirrel numbers.

On bolstering the populations of pine martens, I am conscious of what my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said about the impact on red kittens. The pine marten is a natural predator of grey squirrels, and its reintroduction in places such as the Forest of Dean and Northumberland is expected to have an impact on grey squirrel populations in those areas, reducing their threat. Red squirrels co-evolved with pine martens, which they evade by scurrying to the tips of branches, where the larger pine martens cannot reach them. The greys do not know this trick and as a result are predated upon in higher numbers by pine martens.

My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland also referred to felling licences. They simply authorise the felling of growing trees and do not absolve landowners of compliance with the legislation in place to protect wildlife, including red squirrels, as set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Forestry Commission considers whether to grant felling licences against the UK forestry standard, which covers the impact on biodiversity, including the habitat of red squirrels. The Forestry Commission checks all applications against a large number of records, including red squirrel reserves. That allows the Commission to highlight any potential issues and advise the applicant on how to avoid the disturbance or damage of protected species.

I am pleased to say that later this year there will be a consultation on an English tree strategy, which will provide the opportunity to consider the need for further strengthening of wildlife protections during forestry operations. In the preparation of the environment Bill, we are considering extra powers for the Forestry Commission in some regards, and there may still be an opportunity to consider clauses to strengthen those powers.

The environment improvement and recovery networks will be a key part of fulfilling the 25-year environment plan. One does not always need specific legislation targeting one species; as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) pointed out, it is important to have a holistic approach. Although we need to focus on our iconic native species and the elimination of invasive non-native species, it is absolutely right to take that wider approach. With the development of local nature improvement plans, more focus can be given to those iconic species in areas where they are particularly important, rather than having a one-size-fits-all plan.

Brexit: Trade in Food

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

We start the afternoon in this great Chamber, Westminster Hall, with a debate on the recent report by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs entitled “Brexit: Trade in Food”. It is normal on these occasions for the Minister to be present at the beginning of the debate, although that is not required under Standing Orders. I suspect he may be approaching the Chamber quite quickly. There being no further intelligence on where the Minister might be, I know the Parliamentary Private Secretary will take a keen interest.

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

The PPS can do it!

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I know the PPS will take a keen interest in how the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee approaches the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

That is a very good apology. The Minister elevated our debate to the Chamber when we are actually in Westminster Hall. I appreciate his explanation and thank him for arriving. I am sure his officials will fill him in on the start of my speech.

We have a great farming industry and high-quality products, and it is important that that is supported over the coming years. Continued trade with the EU is essential to ensuring our farming sector thrives after Brexit. We must have an outward-looking, global Britain. That will be key to seeing our agricultural sector flourish, but we must also maintain a good share of our home market and home production. I feel strongly about that. We buy 70% of our food and drink imports from the EU, and we sell 60% of our food and drink exports back to the EU. We can see that trade to the EU is extremely important, and that that means that a farming-focused free trade agreement with the EU is essential. We have always sought reassurance from Ministers that as the deals are done, DEFRA, DEFRA Ministers and the Secretary of State will be at the forefront.

If we do not reach a free trade agreement with the EU, our agricultural goods might well be subject to tariffs once we have left. EU tariffs are high. Tariffs on dairy products are over 30%, and they can be as high as 80% on frozen beef. Reverting to World Trade Organisation rules would be even worse, as tariffs there are far higher for agricultural goods than for many other products. In addition, all countries must be treated equally under WTO rules. For example, Irish beef would need to have the same tariff as Brazilian beef, which could be devastating not only for us, but for Ireland. That is why our report recommends that the Government undertake work as a matter of urgency to evaluate the impact of any deal that they negotiate.

We are calling on the Government to publish a sector-by-sector analysis on the impact of Brexit so that we can better understand how tariffs will affect our farmers. For instance, in the dairy sector we import a similar amount to what we export. We are often importing yoghurts and cheeses, and we have the ability to produce more of those ourselves. We could therefore reduce the need for imports, as we could in other sectors, such as the pig and lamb sectors.

We export some 40% of our lamb, and import some 35%. On the face of it, we could say, “That’s okay. Stop the exports and the imports and we can eat all our own lamb,” but in reality we are exporting fifth-quarter joints and importing legs of lamb from New Zealand. We can see that the trade in lamb backwards and forwards, and with France in particular, is incredibly important.

The Secretary of State assured us on the sector-by-sector analysis yesterday in Committee, and I seek your assurance, Minister, that that work is under way and will be published. In my view, it should have been done already. We have seen, rightly in many respects, many more extra staff being taken on in DEFRA, but I have to say bluntly to you, Minister—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. It is not me that the hon. Gentleman is addressing, but the Minister. You are speaking to “him”.

[Neil Parish]

I beg your pardon, Mr Gray. I say to the Minister, what is happening with the sector-by-sector analysis? When can we expect the analyses to be published? In all the evidence we took for our report, we found that the trading arrangements affect different sectors in very different ways. We need to know exactly what those trading arrangements will be to ensure that we maintain our food production.

A farming-focused free trade agreement is not the only way that the Government can support farmers. I am sure that you, Minister—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not mean to be stiff and pompous, but the reason for the convention is that referring to all other Members in the Chamber in the third person removes the directness from the debate. It is not “you”, but “he” or “the Minister”.

[Neil Parish]

So I can say “Minister”?

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

It is perfectly reasonable to say, “As the Minister will know,” or, “As I hope the Minister will say in replying to the debate.” It is not in order to say, “As you know, Minister,” or, “As I hope you will say in your reply.” You may not use the word “you” apart from when you are referring to me, and I have no part in the debate beyond chairing it.

[Neil Parish]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for that clarification.

Farmers offer vital support to the rural economy, with the food and farming industry generating more than £110 billion a year, and employing one person in eight in the country. Food and drink, much of it produced in this country, is a vital industry, and the way our food is produced is so important for our natural environment, as we can see in many parts of the country.

The Secretary of State was in Exmoor and Devon last week, where the farming of sheep and cattle produces that lovely landscape with many natural features. Within those natural features is a managed farm landscape, which is why the profitability of food and agricultural production is so necessary. We can look at environmental payments, but they will not be able to replace the profitability of agriculture and food production entirely. The two need to go hand in glove, which we are really keen to see happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. This is important and we have plenty of time, hence I will take up a bit more. When you say “sector by sector”, are you talking about the food and drink—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not talking about anything—the Minister is.

[Neil Parish]

When the Minister says “sector by sector”, is he referring to the food and drink sector? Our report naturally referred to the individual sectors of agriculture—dairy, sheep, beef and so on. This issue is linked not only to trade, but to the support policies that will be needed. An extensive beef and sheep farmer perhaps needs the basic farm payment much more than a dairy farmer due to the overall income from that business. That is what we are particularly interested in.

[Neil Parish]

Just to be facetious, Minister, does that mean you are going to re-establish deficiency payments? Do not forget that deficiency payments were coupled with that.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Two points. First, interventions must be quite short. Secondly, I am sorry to pull the hon. Gentleman up again, but it is an absolute rule in this place that hon. Members must refer to one another as “the hon. Member”, “him”, “the Minister”, “she” and so on. Hon. Members may not refer to the Minister as “you”, because whenever you use the word “you”, you are referring to me. Please make an absolute habit of using only the third person.

[George Eustice]

I am interested in history, but I am not necessarily interested in implementing all historical policies. To extend the history lesson, there was also a view in the 1960s that we should not have subsidies but we should have tariffs. Obviously, we have moved some way since then.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In a trade negotiation we are talking about food standards, not just food safety. Some people misleadingly try to divert the debate, but it is about food standards, and issues such as animal welfare and the approach taken to farm husbandry are integral to those standards. We should not be shy about saying so.

A number of hon. Members mentioned IT systems. We—in the European Union—currently use the trade control and expert system, but we are doing a detailed piece of work to build a replacement system, should that be needed, and that work is well advanced. My hon. Friend asks in his Committee’s report for the Government to set out clarity about the future of the agriculture Bill. I am aware that this week the Secretary of State appeared before my hon. Friend’s Committee, where he was given that reassurance. The report also raised the potential impacts of tariffs on food prices. Again, as with the sectoral impacts, the Government are looking at this area, but we are not in a position to publish details. However, I recommend those hon. Members interested to look at work done by, for instance, the Resolution Foundation, which identified the fact that the impact on domestic food prices would be quite marginal, even under a most favoured nation scenario.

We have had a comprehensive debate covering a wide range of issues. I welcome the Committee’s interest and it bringing its report to the House for debate.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

The question is, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Brexit: Trade in Food, HC 348, and the Government response—

[Neil Parish]

rose—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

I beg your pardon. Mr Parish can indeed conclude if he wishes. That is quite right.

Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Marine Environment

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

Absolutely. I read recently that about 90% of the plastic in the world’s oceans comes from 10 rivers in Africa and Asia. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, though, that an awful lot of things are going to have to change, one of which is how we see and think of the marine environment. It has frustrated me for years that things that happen on the high seas are out of sight and out of mind. That applies not just to this issue but to things such as shipping standards. The way we ship oil around the world occasionally comes home very graphically when something goes wrong and there is a major oil spillage.

I come back to how I, as an islander, see the world. So many people see the sea as something that divides us from other places; as an islander, I see it as something that joins us to other places. People who take that view understand that with that attitude comes a shared responsibility for ensuring that our marine environment is as clean as it can be. However, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that what we do in this country is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Inevitably, we will need to work much more closely with people in other parts of the world. I will touch on that later.

The Environmental Audit Committee estimates that we use about 2.5 billion single-use cups, and that only one in 400 of them is recycled. Consider the report in The Guardian today about the way in which wet wipes are changing the shape of our river beds. Thames21 found no fewer than 5,453 wet wipes on 116 square metres of the Thames embankment near Hammersmith. Of course, what starts in our rivers eventually ends up in our oceans.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this extremely important debate. Before he moves off the subject of cups—this may be a matter that you wish to raise with the House authorities, Sir Edward—is it not absurd that we are having this debate surrounded by non-reusable plastic cups? Surely, we in this Parliament should lead the way by replacing them with glasses or at least reusables.

[Mr Carmichael]

I presume that the hon. Gentleman is, like me, a signed-up member of the campaign for a plastic-free Parliament. I was fortunate to be given a coffee glass by the World Wide Fund for Nature as I came to the Chamber. He is absolutely right—that is just one good illustration of how we have become so cavalier about our use of plastics.

We all know—we have seen the pictures—where plastic ends up. Turtles mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and eat them; plastic debris is lodged on coral reefs, which affects the health of the reef and has an impact throughout the marine food chain; and microplastics are consumed by animals as small as plankton, work their way up the food chain and are eventually consumed by us at the top.

[Mr Carmichael]

Although I am delighted that a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is here, this issue will impact on just about every area of public policy if we are serious about tackling it meaningfully. The Government’s role is probably the most significant, but I am resistant, as ever, to the notion that the Government can do everything for us. There are any number of interests at play and places where behaviour can be changed for the better.

There is a role for us all as individuals—in particular as consumers. If we say to supermarkets, “No, we’re not going to come to you. We will go to a supermarket like Iceland,” which has committed to reducing plastic packaging, every supermarket will soon sit up and listen. I recently got my Friday lunch in the Peerie Shop café in Lerwick, and I was gladdened to find that it now has compostable knives, forks and spoons in its takeaway section. That is not a massive expense, but it is a demonstration of commitment—and a demonstration of that café’s commitment to providing what its customers want. There is a business incentive and imperative here.

There is also a role for local government. The provision and operation of recycling facilities will be crucial. We will doubtless talk about the operation of a deposit return scheme, which I hope will increase massively the amount of material there is to be recycled. In fact, it is a bit like flushable wet wipes—there is no point gathering recyclable material if we do not have the capacity to recycle it. Among the representations I received ahead of the debate was a fairly minded one from Harrogate Water Brands, which produces water. It explained that a lot of the plastic that is described as single use is single use only because we do not recycle it, and pointed out, quite fairly, that only about half the material in the plastic bales that local authorities supply for recycling can be used for recycling, as opposed to 95% in the United States and 99% in France.

There is a role for business. I commend Sky in particular, which has not just run its ocean rescue campaign but, in its business operations, taken the goal of becoming plastic-free seriously. It has a target of being plastic-free by 2020. I was struck by the difference that will make. One company of a reasonable size—but not that big—says that by

“eliminating plastic from all Sky offices…it is estimated we will save 560,000 water bottles and 7 million coffee cups per year through our operations.”

That is a good illustration of a company responding to what its customers would want.

Then there is the role for Government—or perhaps I should say Governments. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), 90% of plastics in the oceans come from 10 rivers, and tackling that will obviously require international co-operation. That is the nature of the marine environment; UK action alone will not be sufficient.

I will have some questions later in relation to a specific international issue, but I hope the Minister will have noted Sky—a significant company but one that is not that big—and its target to be plastic-free by 2020. That goal contrasts, in a way that should raise questions, with the targets set by Government for our economy as a whole, which would take us closer to 2040. When Government action and targets are being so outstripped by corporate effort, perhaps we should consider whether we are being ambitious enough.

I welcome the ban on microbeads, although it is still not complete. A microbead that is washed off someone’s face may not be allowed to enter our watercourse or our oceans, but surely a microbead could enter the watercourse and the marine environment if it came from a suntan lotion or similar. A complete ban on microbeads would be the logical conclusion to the brave and innovative work already taking place.

I welcome the commitment to introducing a deposit return scheme, but the detail remains sketchy. I appreciate that we have yet to hear about a consultation, but we should be able to agree on the broad principles. I commend to the Minister the work of Greenpeace, which has come up with some fairly broad headings that she could do worse than include in her consultation. The first of those headings states that there should be no cost to central Government, with administration funded by the scheme, and cost savings for local authorities. Secondly, the only cost to consumers should be to those who do not return the containers they purchase and pay a deposit on. Thirdly, there should not be a cost for small retailers, for a whole range of reasons—our small shops and retailers are already struggling in the current environment—but there is a strong case for including larger retailers in such a scheme. Fourthly, it suggests charging producers an administrative fee for each container manufactured, and a one-off contribution to start-up costs.

Surely we can agree that, at its heart, a deposit return scheme should include all sizes of vessel—and, indeed, plastic, metal and glass. Only then will it be effective. The Minister will be aware that the Scottish Government have already started down this road, and that is the approach they are taking. I suggest there is a benefit to us all in having a single scheme across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[James Gray]

I am puzzled by the bottle return scheme. Of course, on the face of it, it is a good thing: in so far as bottles are recyclable, we can bring them back into use and that is great. However, what happens to the non-recyclable materials gathered back through those means? Surely that material will end up in landfill, as it does at the moment. What will we have achieved?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am not sure that I share the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of what is involved in the return scheme; of course, the consultation is there for that, if necessary. To take his hypothesis as correct, at the very least we would have succeeded in separating the different constituent parts, and that in itself is valuable.

I am conscious of time and the number of Members who wish to speak, so I will try to canter on. The last concern on which I seek the Minister’s comments is the introduction of a so-called latte levy: a surcharge for the use of disposable cups from coffee shops. The Marine Conservation Society recommends something in the region of 25p for each non-reusable drink cup, or indeed a reduction for those who bring a cup to the store themselves. There is a parallel with the plastic bag levy introduced under the coalition Government, which has been a spectacular success: there was an 85% reduction in the use of plastic bags in the first year of its operation. Is that because when we hand over £100 or whatever for our weekly supermarket shop, we think, “I’m not going to spend another 50p on plastic bags”? I do not think so. The introduction of the levy made people consider their behaviour and the impact it would have. I suggest to the Minister that a levy of the sort proposed by the Marine Conservation Society would have a similar impact and could be transformative. I commend it to her for departmental consideration.

I have some technical points in relation to the revision of the EU directive on port reception facilities and how that will impact on campaigns such as the fishing for litter scheme, an initiative run by KIMO that I have supported for many years. In view of the time I have taken—notwithstanding interventions—I will spare the Chamber my comments on that, but the Minister can expect them to land in her correspondence bag in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Gray]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has just made is terribly important. It is hard to understand why the House authorities have not taken note of our calls for the abolition of plastics in Committees. Is this not a message that you, as the Chair, should be able to take to Mr Speaker and the Committees of the House, in the hope that they will finally listen to us?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I am sure that all colleagues will exercise their good judgment.

Equine Slaughterhouses (CCTV)

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I believe that CCTV protects animals and workers in slaughterhouses and public confidence in the meat produced there. All those things are important. We have a real issue in relation to CCTV and public confidence. There is concern at present that horse welfare is not protected during the process, perhaps because of the particularly sensitive nature of horses. Specific characteristics of equines can make them vulnerable. For instance, they are “fight or flight” animals; when frightened, they seek to flee, and they become panicked or aggressive if they are not handled competently. They are sensitive and highly social herd creatures, and it is a legal requirement for them not to be killed in sight of other horses. Let us not forget that horses, unlike agricultural livestock, have been bred for hundreds of generations to interact with people. That is part of their behaviour pattern and is one of the reasons why we love them—those of us who keep them.

It can be the horse owners themselves who take their horse to slaughter, and that horse may have been a companion to them for many years. Society expects horse owners to feel an emotional attachment to their animals. The horse owner will want—perhaps more than most—a guarantee that the welfare of their horse will be protected at the abattoir, and they will want other horse owners not to judge them for ending their horse’s life in this way, which means that we need to ensure that the abattoir is, and is seen to be, a humane end-of-life option.

Will CCTV provide such a guarantee? On its own, of course it will not, as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the FSA, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the British Meat Processors Association and many others have said. CCTV is but one of many tools to help safeguard welfare. It should be seen not as a replacement for on-site monitoring, but as support for it. Official veterinarians work in every slaughterhouse across England and Wales and make regular unannounced checks on live animals at slaughter to ensure that their welfare is safeguarded.

The FSA’s veterinary audit team checks compliance. However, no single person can monitor the whole slaughter process—from animals held in lairage, through to being led to the stun box or slaughter area, through to the actual killing. CCTV that is in constant operation, placed to cover all live horse areas, such as the unloading, lairage and so forth, provides a record of the entire process and of the animals’ experience throughout.

As I have said, CCTV could have great benefits for the slaughterhouse operator, who is responsible for ensuring the welfare of animals while on the premises. Operators would be able to monitor and assess whether their staff were complying with the law. They would also have evidence to disprove spurious allegations of malpractice. In that respect, CCTV protects slaughterhouse workers and owners, and furthermore, it can be used for staff training and development. A European slaughterhouse told World Horse Welfare that CCTV was invaluable for staff training purposes.

The most common rebuttal of mandatory CCTV is cost. However, the costs, as the Minister explained in a debate on the issue last year, are “relatively modest”. CCTV systems can be purchased for less than £1,000 and many slaughterhouses already have the systems in place to monitor the exterior of their premises for security reasons, so why not inside as well?

To provide genuine transparency and engender confidence, the footage should be available to authorities. No law currently requires CCTV footage from slaughterhouses to be shared with official vets or the FSA, whose role is to monitor welfare at slaughter. For the use of CCTV to be effective, that must change. Mandatory CCTV in equine slaughterhouses must be legislated for in tandem with a requirement for footage to be made available to those authorities. Only that will truly deliver the transparency that the public need and expect.

What is the state of play? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that it wishes to encourage a voluntary approach to installing CCTV. The Welsh Government have also indicated that they support the use of CCTV in slaughterhouses in Wales, but have failed to legislate to make it mandatory. It is clear that that approach is not working. The FSA, in its board report of 21 September this year, confirmed that take-up of CCTV had “plateaued” at 49% in red meat slaughterhouses. When slaughterhouses have CCTV, it might not be placed in areas which allow them to monitor horse welfare. We need a mandatory approach.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

No horse lover could possibly disagree with the general thrust of the hon. Lady’s arguments; of course it is right that we should have CCTV where that can be done. However, only 5,000 horses a year are killed in abattoirs, of the 75,000 or 100,000 that are killed. Is there not a risk that if she focuses all her attention on persuading the Government to introduce primary legislation—an extremely difficult thing to do—she would be ignoring the horse welfare issues associated with the other 95,000?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments but perhaps the fact that, at present, so few horses travel through slaughterhouses to the end of their lives is, in itself, a welfare issue. If more horse owners, and the horse-keeping society as a whole, were more confident that that approach was appropriate, perhaps the number of horses doing that, in turn, would increase.

Let me return to the state of play. Another DEFRA approach has been to say that consumer and retailer pressure, as opposed to legislation, should be the means used to encourage the greater use of CCTV. DEFRA cites the fact that most major food retailers—I will not list them, but it is all the major supermarkets—now insist on the use of CCTV in supply chain slaughterhouses, and there are many assurance schemes, such as RSPCA Assured. However—this is pertinent—that consumer-pressure approach will not work for horses, because horse meat is rarely sold or eaten in the United Kingdom. Most of the horse meat that we produce is sold on the continent, mostly to wholesalers, so consumer and retailer pressure is not applicable.

In conclusion, I hope that the case for making CCTV mandatory in the UK’s equine slaughterhouses is clear. The current voluntary approach will not deliver that. Horse owners do not have confidence that abattoirs will protect horse welfare throughout the process. There is neither transparency nor accountability in the system for horses—just the memory of the horrific covert footage from 2013. The losers in this state of affairs are not just the horses, but horse owners, retailers and the general public, who all suffer from the negative consequences of bad practice and low confidence in equine slaughterhouses. I therefore urge the Minister to do all that he can to provide a system that ensures high standards of welfare and instils greater confidence in the sector by exploring a mandatory requirement for CCTV in equine slaughterhouses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on introducing this extremely important debate in such a professional and sensible way. It might seem odd, but I have not disagreed with a single word that she or any other speaker has said in this debate. Incidentally, before I forget, I declare that I, too, am an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association. I am also a member of the Countryside Alliance and I own a variety of horses, and have done so for many years. It is true to say that there is no correlation between richness and owning horses. Indeed, I have discovered over the years that owning horses is what makes one poor. I have had a rather large number of horses at one time or another.

I have also had the experience of taking horses to slaughter, and there can be no more terrible event in one’s life than to take to its death an animal with which one has had a day-to-day working relationship for many, many years—I am sure the same applies to dogs and cats, too. I strongly support the thrust of what has been said by all the speakers, especially the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) a moment ago. Their points are absolutely correct, and I strongly support World Horse Welfare’s campaign to introduce compulsory CCTV in abattoirs, of which there can be no doubt.

I hope that those who feel strongly about this subject will forgive me if I raise a couple of issues that I hope will not detract from the strength of the campaign, but that none the less need careful consideration. The first, which was touched on by the hon. Lady for Northern Ireland (Lady Hermon), is that there have been remarkably few prosecutions, even where there is compulsory CCTV. I am ashamed to say that one of the biggest prosecutions was of that dreadful man from west London called James Gray. I assure the House that he is absolutely no relation; none the less, it was an appalling case.

The question is whether introducing compulsory CCTV in the small number of abattoirs that kill horses would necessarily have a significant effect. My concern is that this might be one of those occasions where we make a huge effort to introduce regulation or new legislation that has little effect and might, on the contrary, assuage our concerns and make us feel that we have done something when what we have done is actually relatively inconsequential.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I seek not to be mischievous, but does my hon. Friend concede that it is just possible that there are so few prosecutions of places with CCTV cameras precisely because the cameras are having the deterrent effect that we seek?

[Mr Gray]

That is possible, of course, but it is hard to work out the cause and effect. In the case of horses, I suspect that it is probably because, depending on the statistics we use, only 4,000 or 5,000 are slaughtered each year in up to five abattoirs—there are none in Wales or Scotland. In other words, something in the order of 1,000 horses are slaughtered per equine abattoir spread over 50 weeks. A very small number of horses are being killed in licensed abattoirs today, and therefore there is no presumption that any of them is carrying out anything other than the highest possible standards of slaughter.

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way, given that I have just delivered my speech. It is a mistake to assume that the five abattoirs kill an equal number of horses, because they do not. The numbers are very uneven. The FSA’s figures show that the best records and CCTV coverage are sometimes to be found in smaller abattoirs.

[Mr Gray]

The statistical point that I was making was not whether the same number were killed in each of the five abattoirs; it was that a relatively small number are killed across the whole of England. As far as I am aware, there is also little evidence of anything other than high standards in the abattoirs that do kill horses. We must not start by presuming that they are all bad people doing wicked things. They are not, necessarily; many of them are extremely professional abattoirs doing good things, so let us not start from the presumption that they are bad.

There is a bigger gap in the campaign that we are discussing. I think I am right in saying that the only horses that go to abattoirs are those going into the food chain, which in the UK is a relatively small number. If we presume that there are between 1 million and 1.5 million horses in the UK today, that means that 75,000 or 100,000 die every year in one way or another. Of those, only a tiny proportion go into the food chain. Again, my concern about the campaign is that we would be assuring ourselves that we were doing something terribly important about the euthanising of horses, whereas in fact we would be dealing with an extremely small proportion of those that are killed or die every year, and there may well be other abuses elsewhere that we could more usefully spend our time addressing.

That brings us to the question of horse passports. It must be remembered that the only horses that can be presented at an abattoir are those with up-to-date horse passports, in which no veterinary medicine appears. Nearly all horses, especially low-grade horses, will have had some form of veterinary medicine during the course of their life, particularly bute, which rules them out for presentation at an equine slaughterhouse.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Government introduced the national equine database to check all horses to ensure that their passports are correct and have the right information?

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend tempts me down a corridor that is not directly relevant to this debate. I take exactly the opposite view, which is that we should abolish passports and the database, relying only on some form of documentation for those horses presented to be eaten, to prove that they are fit for human consumption. All other horses and equines need no form of documentation to prove that. At the moment, of course, every zebra and vicar’s donkey is required to have a horse passport, merely in order to allow that small number of horses to go through abattoirs every year. That is a disproportionate bureaucratic solution to a very small problem.

The point that I am making is this. An extraordinarily small number of horses go through the abattoir. The only ones allowed to do so are those that have never had any form of medication. Therefore, many of the worst horses, in welfare terms—wilder, cheaper or less valued ponies—are unable to get into the abattoir, even supposing that it does have CCTV. We in this place often do things to make ourselves feel better. We are concerned about the end of life for horses; of course we are worried about it, and quite right too. Of course we are concerned that abattoirs should apply the highest possible standards, and it is absolutely right that we should take steps to ensure that they do.

However, my concern is that in concentrating solely on that, we are concentrating on a tiny part of the problem of horse welfare. A far bigger problem is the number of dumped horses and wild horses; we do not know where they are or what to do about them. This is a tiny problem, and we do not even know that it really is one. If we were to use our primary legislation to solve something that might or might not really be a problem, we would be fooling ourselves that we had done something useful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

CCTV has a dual purpose. First, it ensures that the slaughter of animals is done correctly. Secondly, it also ensures that slaughterhouse personnel have done it correctly—the proof is in the CCTV footage. Is there not a dual purpose? It protects both the slaughterhouse and the staff.

[Mr Gray]

That is, of course, correct, but it applies only to the tiny proportion of horses that go to the slaughterhouse. That is the point that I am making; only a very small number are killed in equine slaughterhouses. There is no protection whatever for horses killed by the knackerman, although contrary to what somebody said a moment ago, most of the knackermen that I have met are extremely professional animal lovers; the notion that they are bloodthirsty murderers is incorrect. By far the biggest professionals of all in terms of killing horses are at local hunt kennels, where people feel strongly about horses and know more about them than almost anybody else. Hunt kennels provide a fantastic resource for the countryside by slaughtering horses at the end of their lives.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s argument that many horses might not be reached by a scheme, as they are not passported, but I refer him to my speech, in which I mentioned that horse owners who are concerned about the welfare of their horses, who have passports and who know whether bute has been used or not are a particular cohort of people whom we should address by making slaughterhouses as accessible to them as possible as an alternative.

[Mr Gray]

I agree. Of course there are responsible, sensible, grown-up horse owners who would prefer their horse to go into the food chain, although I must say that I am not certain that I want my horse to be eaten. I would much prefer my horses to be burned, or buried in some instances. I am not certain that taking them to the abattoir to be turned into horse meat and sold in supermarkets across the continent is what I personally would want to happen, even though I believe that I am a reasonably responsible horse owner. However, my concern is not so much the people like us who are responsible and who understand about veterinary medicines and all that; it is about the hundreds of thousands of other horses that are not owned by responsible owners, that would not be taken to abattoirs and that have had veterinary medicines. They are the horses towards which we must address our concerns.

All I am saying is that the minimum—proper standards in the abattoir—must not be the enemy of the best. Although I support this particular campaign—it is a good idea, and we must find a way to ensure that there are no abuses in our equine slaughterhouses—I ask the Minister not to use it as an excuse for not doing something about the much bigger problem of the large number of horses that are unwanted, dumped on other people’s land or used in the extremely inhumane horse trade. There are a whole variety of welfare problems that this small matter would not necessarily solve.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to correct the record by clarifying one point. He referred to me as “the hon. Lady for Northern Ireland”—I am the hon. Member for North Down—and quoted me as apparently supporting the idea that the low number of prosecutions was evidence that CCTV was not working. Quite the opposite: I think that CCTV should be comprehensive throughout the entire slaughterhouse, and that Food Standards Agency staff should have compulsory and easy access to all the footage. That was my point. That would make horse slaughterhouses much more effective.

[Mr Gray]

I know that the hon. Member for North Down will forgive me if I inadvertently misquoted her; of course we understood that she meant that we prefer to have CCTV in all slaughterhouses. If some remark of mine made her feel that I had not understood that point, I apologise. My concern is simply that by introducing legislation that is the least we can—

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Gray]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am quite keen to hear what the Minister has to say, but of course.

[Christina Rees]

I definitely do not want the hon. Gentleman’s horses to be eaten. I watched a TV documentary on slaughterhouses as a teenager, and it turned me into a vegan; I have not eaten meat all my life. I support the campaign, because I think that any exposure of slaughterhouses would be beneficial, and I support CCTV cameras in—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech, not asking a question of the hon. Member speaking.

[Mr Gray]

I accept what the hon. Lady says. A couple of experiences that I have had in slaughterhouses over the years have nearly made me, the biggest beef-eater in Parliament, a vegan. It is a revolting sight, and I would certainly not want to see my horse taken there and slaughtered. However, she makes an extremely good point, which is that the only horses that go to horse slaughterhouses are those destined for the food chain. Other horses do not. Ninety-five per cent of horses are not destined for the food chain, and could not go there. There is a bigger issue. I always argue that we ought to abolish equine slaughterhouses in the UK altogether, thereby sending no meat at all into the human food chain, although I accept the animal welfare downside to that as well: where would those ponies and horses then go?

My message to the Minister is that we must avoid making one thing that we do—introducing compulsory CCTV into slaughterhouses—the enemy of the best. We must address the huge animal welfare concerns about horses, particularly about the large number of unwanted horses abandoned across our land, which is growing as we speak. Those horses will never go anywhere near an equine slaughterhouse, and the provision of CCTV in such slaughterhouses will therefore not help them even slightly at the end of their lives.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and congratulate the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd on obtaining the debate. I hope that she does not feel that I have in any way lessened the thrust of her argument, which was very powerful. None the less, I hope that one result of this afternoon’s debate will be that the Government begin to listen and think more carefully about the wider welfare issues that affect horses across our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

No; the number would be far higher than that. I will have to write to the hon. Lady to confirm the figures, but the figure of 61 is for only one of the slaughterhouses—the one in Lincolnshire.

[Mr James Gray]

The Minister mentioned that in the past 12 months only 32 horses were killed in abattoirs with no CCTV; is he aware of any reason to presume that those 32 were killed under anything other than 100% humane circumstances?

[George Eustice]

The feedback we have had from the Food Standards Agency’s official veterinarians and reports is that it has not encountered any particular problems or concerns about the welfare of horses at slaughter. We should also note that the number of horses slaughtered at abattoirs in the UK has been in steady decline since 2012, when 8,426 horses were slaughtered. That fell to 5,000 by 2013, and in this past year it is down to just 3,280. That partly reflects a changing view among owners about the end-of-life choices that they have for their horses. It also reflects, as several hon. Members have said, how people are increasingly choosing to have their horses euthanised.

I want to talk about the meat of this debate, which is CCTV. As many hon. Members have said today, CCTV can and does play a useful role. Last year, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee published an interesting report that detailed the positive benefits of CCTV to slaughterhouse operators and those monitoring and verifying compliance with welfare standards. The benefits go much wider than any deterrent effect, and include, for instance, more accurate ante-mortem inspection in the lairage—for example, sheep often mask lameness if stressed when a stockman or vet is present, but behave normally under remote observation.

Another benefit is that CCTV can be a valuable training tool for operatives to encourage sensitive and sympathetic behaviour towards animals, and it can enable the spotting of any bad practices that could result in incidents or near misses. It can also allow the observation of activities in small or confined spaces that it would otherwise be difficult for the official veterinarian to observe. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals briefing for the debate also illustrates, it can be of use to operators and audit schemes in providing assurance that good practice and legal requirements are followed.

The Government understand the desire for the use of CCTV in all slaughterhouses, although we are yet to be convinced that it should be a mandatory requirement. I do, though, understand the calls for the Government to go further by introducing legislation to require slaughterhouses to have CCTV installed, and that official veterinarians should have unfettered access to CCTV footage. As I have made clear previously, the Government have never ruled out further action, and we keep the matter under review. I shall ensure that my noble Friend Lord Gardiner, who now has responsibility for the relevant part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs portfolio, is made aware of the points made today. We will, of course, consider them all carefully.

It is important to highlight one other important point about CCTV made by the FAWC, which is that it is at its most powerful when used as a tool for food business operators to manage their operations and staff and to help with training. There is one area of caution here: CCTV cannot be a substitute for responsible food business operators, and nor can it replace the role of official veterinarians. If it is used, it is preferable that it is used because food business operators really want it and want to use it to improve the management of their operation. In considering legislation, we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently change the culture and thereby lose out on all the benefits from CCTV highlighted by the FAWC. It is for that reason that the Government have encouraged the voluntary take-up of CCTV in slaughterhouses, and will continue to do so.

It might help if I clarify the current situation concerning CCTV in slaughterhouses generally. The latest FSA survey figures show that in Great Britain 92% of cattle, 96% of pig, 88% of sheep and 99% of poultry throughput is currently from premises with CCTV. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, the number of slaughterhouses with CCTV installed has been at the same level for the past couple of years. The numbers of high-throughput slaughterhouses with CCTV reflects the fact that, although the installation of CCTV in slaughterhouses is currently voluntary, it is also a requirement of many retailers and food assurance schemes. I acknowledge that many of the medium and smaller slaughterhouses have not yet installed CCTV. Many operators who have installed CCTV say that it is a positive training tool, so we would like to consider the issue to ensure that we get greater uptake of CCTV installation.

I shall briefly address some of the issues mentioned by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd talked about EU law. She is right that the initial intention of the great repeal Bill is that existing EU regulations will be put on to a UK legal basis, but I should point out that there is currently nothing in EU law that would prevent us from legislating to introduce mandatory CCTV if we so wished. This also relates to a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon). I do not intend to blame the EU and say that we cannot do it because it is not required; it is not required under EU law, but there is nothing in EU law that would prohibit it.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd also mentioned the cost. I have said in previous debates that the cost is indeed modest. She said that it can be under £1,000, and it can be for single cameras, as I have pointed out previously. However, when the FAWC looked into the cost, it estimated that for most abattoirs the cost of installing CCTV in the areas that people would want covered, which would require several cameras and additional monitoring systems, would be £3,000 to £10,000. As I have said previously and will say again, though, that is a relatively modest cost.

[Mr James Gray]

Does the Minister accept that there is a risk that the number of abattoirs killing horses and the number of horses killed in abattoirs might well decline further if CCTV is made compulsory? Many abattoir owners will simply say, “Why bother with horses?”, because they are a huge hassle anyhow and the carcass value is very low. Is there not at least a risk that the small number of abattoirs will become smaller?

[George Eustice]

There is another, wider point. This debate is focused specifically on CCTV at the point of horses’ slaughter, but all five of the slaughterhouses that are licensed to slaughter horses also slaughter other animals. The reality is that, were anybody to consider measures on CCTV, I am not sure there would be a specific reason to single out those abattoirs licensed for horses. I think that if someone was going to install CCTV, they would take a broader view, across all species, because the principles involved are broadly the same for each species.

The final point that I will make on the speech of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd relates to her claim that in the case of horse abattoirs there is not retail pressure. I think she is missing a point here, as all five abattoirs also slaughter other animals—other farm livestock. That is probably why three of the five already have CCTV.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has been a long-standing campaigner on a wide range of animal welfare issues. He made a separate legislative point, saying that if there is not time for primary legislation to address this issue, perhaps the Government should give a fair wind to a private Member’s Bill. Obviously, private Member’s Bills are an issue for the House and for private Members; it is open to anyone at any time to bring one forward. However, I am not sure that we would need primary legislation if we decided to address this issue. Potentially it could be dealt with under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which has quite wide provisions to deal with these types of things. Nevertheless, I take on board his point, and if any Back Bencher wanted to introduce such legislation, they could obviously do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Diolch yn fawr iawn—thank you very much, Mrs Main, for giving me the opportunity to close this debate.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate this afternoon. I think that I need to put on the record, as I have heard everybody else doing so, that I have been an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association for about three weeks or so. It is important that I record that.

Listening to the speeches, the general thrust was to do the best that we can for the welfare of horses, and of domestic and agricultural animals more widely. I particularly welcome the support from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, and also his comment that the cost of CCTV need not be prohibitive.

I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who mentioned the “invisible horse”, referring to the fact that there are many animals out there that are effectively not seen by anybody. It is very easy for an animal that is kept, say, in a field simply to disappear from sight; although we are concerned for its welfare, we are not really in a position to know much about what is happening to them.

I agree with the concern of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) about the wider issue with horse welfare. I understand that there are almost 800,000 horses in the United Kingdom, although we do not know how many there really are, and a great many horses are owned by people who, in all honesty, are not interested in any aspect of their welfare. Although I feel strongly that CCTV would improve the welfare of horses in certain circumstances, we should not fool ourselves that CCTV in itself would resolve all the problems for horses. I share the hon. Gentleman’s discomfort with the idea that horses are meat animals. None the less, the fact that, although they are not meat animals, they are still large herbivores in itself affects their life experience.

Turning to the contribution of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), of course, Scotland and Wales are in the same situation; we do not have licensed equine slaughterhouses. That means that horse owners in Wales or Scotland have to travel outside our nations if they wish to use those facilities.

It is important that all the nations of the United Kingdom set standards for each other. Wales passed the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014, which dealt with fly-grazing; previous to that being dealt with in England. Interestingly enough, only a certain number of authorities have used those enabling powers. I suspect that is partly because some of them do not want to be seen to be responsible for the death of horses that come under their control, which is part of the irony of our relationship with horses. In welfare terms, we perhaps need to address that irony.

Finally, I turn to the contribution by the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon). She summarised the views of many in this House by saying that the welfare of animals in slaughterhouses is of paramount concern to the public. I very much welcome some of the Minister’s comments. I noted his comments that CCTV has a useful role to play; that it can make evident concealed injuries, such as lameness, which animals conceal when they are under stress and feel that they are being observed; that it can be used for training; and that it can be used in particular when it is difficult to gain access to smaller spaces.

I noticed the subtleties of the Minister’s comment that he perhaps remains to be convinced about CCTV but that he has never ruled out further action. He also said that this issue could be dealt with by a private Member’s Bill or a statutory instrument arising from the Animal Welfare Act 2016, which was certainly an interesting comment. I hope that he will commit to consider that matter further in future.

Of course, CCTV is not a substitute for responsible work practices or the presence of official veterinarians. Nevertheless, there is a strong feeling that it contributes to and enhances welfare. As for making CCTV mandatory, we have been talking about equines today but that could also apply—well, it should apply—to all other agricultural animals. The time has come to deal with this issue, and there are strong feelings about that.

I will close by saying that many little girls aspire to own their first My Little Pony and then to own the real thing—

[Mr James Gray]

And little boys.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

And little boys, possibly. I am talking for myself and my own daughters; forgive me. However, horses are not necessarily well served if they are regarded an aspirational status symbol. They are neither an agricultural animal nor a visible family pet. They can be dumped, “invisible” and uncared for, in barns or fields. They can be cheap to buy; indeed, they can easily be free to acquire. The costs of worming them and maintaining their feet can be prohibitive for people who might find it easy to acquire them, and their value disappears after they reach a certain age.

Mandatory CCTV and ensuring access to CCTV footage will improve the reality of horse welfare, and indeed that of all animals sent to slaughterhouses, and I hope that we can address this issue further in the future. Thanks very much—diolch yn fawr iawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered CCTV in equine slaughterhouses.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Climate change is baked into every aspect of this Department’s work. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the risk assessment conducted in 2012 on climate change adaptation focused specifically on flood risk, but he is correct that there are other issues we need to look at—and look at relentlessly—which is why we look forward to providing a full response to the assessment provided by the climate change adaptation sub-committee.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

There can be no question about it: it does cost more to live in rural areas compared with urban areas, so I very much welcome the reduction in fuel duty, the cap on petrol prices and equalising the council tax. All these things are extremely helpful, but transport must be central to this. Twenty-five per cent. of people in my constituency do not have cars. Will the Minister take steps to look into community bus services, such as Bradies taxis, which I launched last week in my constituency? They are at the end of a telephone and will go and pick people up from their rural locations.

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of the issues of rural areas. The Department for Transport launched an interesting scheme towards the end of the last Parliament to provide support for community transport schemes. If he wishes to discuss it in more detail, I would encourage the council to apply to the Department for Transport for that fund.