Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

My hon. Friend is right: canned lion hunting is one of the grimmest of all human activities. It is hard to see any defence for it. There are concerns that, although it may not be a direct conservation issue, creating a legal trade in lion parts, particularly lion bones, provides a cover for the illegal trade, and we know that lion numbers have plummeted in the last 15 or 20 years. As she mentioned, we have committed to launching a call for evidence and, based on the results we get, we will take whatever steps are necessary to end or to regulate the import of hunting trophies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister for all he has done to stop imports from trophy hunting, but with special reference to that can he outline recent steps taken to absolutely ban any such imports? I think it is the mood of the House and the country for that to happen. Can he tell us what has been done?

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Gentleman knows my views on the issue; we have discussed it many times. From the Back Benches and as a Minister, I have debated the issue with him, although we have been on the same side of the debate. I am appalled by the very concept of wanting to shoot these extraordinarily beautiful, endangered wild animals. I cannot see any obvious link between that activity and protection of those animals. However, we are obliged as a Government, before embarking on any kind of legislation to prevent the import of trophies, to consult so that we know exactly what the impacts of that potential legislative change would be. So we have to do that consultation. We have to do it in an honest fashion. On the back of that consultation, we will take whatever steps are necessary, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not an issue that we intend to kick into the long grass.

Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I have heard a bit about what his council is doing and it does sound inspired. I would love to take him up on his very kind invitation. We will talk later. Now I am going to make some progress.

The Government’s support for CITES is just one part of a much bigger and wider commitment to tackling the catastrophic loss of biodiversity we are now facing. At the UN General Assembly a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced a new £220 million international biodiversity fund to protect and restore biodiversity. The new fund will provide support for, among other things, a new biodiverse landscapes initiative, substantial uplifts to the world-renowned Darwin fund, and work to combat the illegal wildlife trade, including for the IWT Challenge Fund. He also announced a doubling of international climate finance to £11.6 billion. That will provide for a massive scaling up of nature-based solutions to climate change, which are vital if we are serious about averting the threat not only of mass extinctions, but of climate change. The proposed legislation makes sure that after we leave the European Union, the regulations implementing CITES will work in the UK.

CITES is currently implemented in the EU through a number of regulations known as the EU wildlife trade regulations. Those EU regulations will become retained EU law on exit day. We have already made various EU exit regulations to make the legislation work in the UK. This statutory instrument corrects the drafting in one of the previous EU exit instruments.

The EU regulations put in place a system of permits and certificates for cross-border movement of specimens of endangered species. The main EU regulation, No. 338/97, contains a number of derogations—exceptions—from the permitting regime. Further detailed provisions on derogations are then set out in a subsidiary, implementing regulation, No. 865/2006. The main regulation gives the European Commission powers to legislate and set out these rules in subsidiary legislation.

We are talking here about specific provisions. The main regulation contains derogations in articles 7(1) to 7(3). These relate to specimens of species born and bred in captivity or artificially propagated, specimens in transit, and specimens that are personal and household effects. Article 7 currently gives the European Commission legislative powers to make further detailed provisions on these derogations, and that has been done in subsidiary legislation—EU regulation No. 865/2006.

These derogations cover, for example, the process by which someone may be able to import certain artificially propagated orchid hybrids without the normally required CITES paperwork and checks, recognising the low conservation risk that that trade has. They also govern how someone might be able to move a piece of rosewood furniture when a family moves from one country to another.

This SI ensures that the Secretary of State has the necessary legislative powers to amend detailed provisions on key derogations in retained EU law. It corrects the drafting in a previous SI, the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—henceforth referred to as SI 2019/473—which will in turn amend CITES-related retained EU law on exit day. SI 2019/473 provides for the Secretary of State to carry out functions currently performed by the European Commission and for her to set out the detailed provisions on the relevant article 7 derogations “in writing”.

This proposed SI makes two amendments. The first corrects a drafting error, so that the Secretary of State can set out the regulatory detail of the derogations “in regulations”, as opposed to “in writing”. That will ensure that the Secretary of State has the legislative power to amend the retained EU law provisions after exit. This ensures that we can, for example, amend the detailed derogation provisions to strengthen the controls that we have in line with our oft-stated policy aims. The second amendment provides that regulations made by the Secretary of State in respect of these derogations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative resolution procedure.

The Government have made it clear that the intention is to raise the bar for environmental standards when we leave the European Union. This includes our efforts to protect endangered species and our commitment to CITES.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When Ministers are outlining what is going to happen in the House, it is also important that the regional devolved Administrations, whether they are in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, are under the same rules and regulations. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case—that what he is bringing before the House tonight on environmental protection will also apply to Northern Ireland, which I represent?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. This instrument deals with entirely reserved matters. A draft of it has been shared with the devolved Administrations, but for information, the answer is that it will apply across the board.

These changes have been made because they are necessary to make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power not simply to take administrative action, but to legislate and amend retained EU law in respect of these key derogations. This will ensure that retained EU law is operable on exit.

In conclusion, I reiterate that this instrument will ensure that the Secretary of State can amend detailed provisions on key derogations in the regime implementing CITES. It provides for regulations made by the Secretary of State in respect of those derogations to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative resolution procedure. This instrument is thus necessary to ensure the full operability of retained EU law after we leave the EU. For those reasons, I commend this legislation to the House.

Trophy Hunting

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

I cannot speak for the Government, but I will attempt to answer that question in the remaining minutes of my speech. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and I are largely on the same page.

Having said what I have said about the moral conundrum or the moral case for or against trophy hunting, it is important for the sake of this debate—the Government certainly have to do this—to separate the moral arguments from the conservation arguments. Morally, the issue is largely black and white. We are either comfortable with endangered wild animals being killed for fun or we are not, but from a conservation point of view, I have to acknowledge, not least because I have just been in a big discussion with conservation groups arguing about the issue, that the issue is at least more nuanced than that. I will explain why, but before I do, I will give way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for what he does on conservation work across the world. We are much indebted to him for his leadership. He referred to conservation. When we have any conversations about animals or animal welfare, we must always be sure to discuss conservation, because it is so important. How can we do better at conserving wildlife and ensuring that the habitat is still there to sustain the animals? Some of the reasons for the decreasing numbers are habitat loss and poor management. He has secured this debate, and I know he wants to add hippopotamuses to the Ivory Act 2018. I fully support him in that.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to habitat loss, which is the biggest cause of extinction. I have an idea—I will mention it right at the end of the debate, if that is okay—that would help to address that problem.

It would be wrong if I failed to acknowledge the live debate between experts, NGOs and even conservation charities about hunting. There are those who argue that it can contribute to conservation. Those in favour of trophy hunting say, for example, that it is nothing compared to the threat of habitat loss, illegal poaching, human and animal conflict and so on, which contribute a great deal more to the decline in species, and that we should focus on them instead. The first part of that is true, but it does not strike me as an argument against taking action to tackle trophy hunting. We could say, but I do not think we would, that we should not worry about deforestation because it is not as big a part of the climate change problem as transport, for instance.

Those in favour of trophy hunting also say that it can generate important revenue for deprived areas of the world—revenue that can be spent on preserving habitat and protecting endangered species more widely. That is an important argument, which needs to be examined properly. The problem—the Minister will probably make the same point—is that there is simply not enough evidence or data to back up that assertion. I am struck by the way in which pro-conservation arguments in favour of trophy hunting are always phrased. Trophy hunting is okay if it is properly regulated, if the fees go to local communities and if it is sustainable. I suspect that advocates of those arguments are arguing for something that, although it is undoubtedly done to a higher standard occasionally, just does not exist on a wide scale.

The Government use a similar argument. In explaining the Government’s position, Ministers have said that sustainable trophy hunting can play a part in species conservation efforts, including providing funding for conservation. I have three questions about that approach. First, are Ministers confident that the large fees charged for trophy hunting are actually being spent on conservation, rather than going to those organising the hunts? There is very little evidence that the money is genuinely reinvested in protecting habitats or helping local communities.

Secondly, do Ministers really believe that the money generated from hunting is preferable to the much larger sums that could be generated, where appropriate, from such things as wildlife tourism and sustainable land use? The Wildlife Trusts estimates that a live elephant is worth 76 times more than a dead elephant.

Anti-Corruption Strategy: Illegal Wildlife Trade

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It thank the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for introducing the debate.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) issued a challenge to the House to hold wildlife in trust for those who come after us. We all have that challenge in our hearts. We must try to do it. I recently saw a video making the rounds on social media of a baby rhino in South Africa lying by the side of its dead mother, seemingly crying—it looked like that on the video. Such things are an unfortunate reality in the world we live in, but what caused that death should not be. The mother’s horns had been ripped from her body. Stats sometimes bring things home to us, because they show the enormous scale of what is happening. Rhino poaching has increased between 2007 and 2013 by 7,700% from 13 per year to 1,004 per year. That is incredible. The significance and magnitude of the figures cannot be stressed enough.

I was interested to hear about the hidden talents of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on the bagpipes. I would not have known. I am fond of the bagpipes, by the way. I love them, and they are very much part of life and tradition in Northern Ireland. Perhaps one day we will have the hon. Gentleman over to entertain us—12 July would be the day to come, but that is by the way.

The illegal wildlife trade is worth more than £15 billion a year. It is the fourth most lucrative illicit trade in the world after drugs, weapons and human trafficking. The very thought makes me ill. I have had a surprising number of emails from constituents about the debate. The more I have looked into the facts and figures, the more I have seen that, while we clearly have taken steps, we are not doing enough. We should be stepping out on the world stage, playing a greater role on behalf of those we could help, and bringing about the end of a vile trade.

I firmly concur with the aims and goals of the Worldwide Fund for Nature with respect to the end of illegal trade in animals: we must be clear, first, about adopting

“zero tolerance policy on corruption associated with the illegal wildlife trade, recognising with great concern that corruption is an important factor facilitating the criminal activities associated with the illegal wildlife trade.”

Secondly, we must urge countries where poaching, trafficking and buying take place to commit to supporting strategies that deepen understanding of corruption risks, and mitigation strategies to address the corruption that makes the illegal wildlife trade possible. We must review progress on existing high-level commitments such as those made in the London declaration of 2014 and the Kasane statement of 2015. We have made lots of statements and verbal commitments, but we need something that stops what is happening. We need to address the problem of corruption facilitating wildlife trafficking and related offences by reviewing or amending legislation as necessary, and criminalising the corruption that facilitates the trade. We should strengthen the legal framework and facilitate law enforcement to combat the illegal wildlife trade and assist with prosecution and the imposition of penalties that are an effective deterrent.

The illegal wildlife trade is made possible by corruption, and it fuels further corruption. Only if we tackle corruption can we eliminate the trade. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) in an intervention mentioned steps taken by China, which I hope make a difference. China sometimes says it will do something, but ivory trading seems to continue. Let us see how that works. Corruption can take place at every stage of the chain—poaching, trafficking, trading and laundering of the illegal proceeds of crime. It can be at the highest level, sanctioned for individual gain.

I had the pleasure of going on a half-day on safari in Kenya, with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was an opportunity for me to watch some of the creatures that God created. They must have been looking at me, as I had a white shirt on—of all the things to wear on safari. The sheer power of the lions, the beauty of the giraffes and the intelligence of the elephants is something that remains with me to this day. I thank my creator, God, who made wonders for our enjoyment—certainly not for our abuse or for the illegal animal trade. That is an abuse of God’s creation. Lions are being hunted for the thrill of the ride and as a trophy, and elephants for their ivory, with more than 100,000 killed by poachers between 2010 and 2012. Twenty thousand elephants are killed every year for the illegal ivory trade. The numbers suggest that, in the two months since the closure of the consultation at the end of December, approximately 8,300 elephants have been slaughtered, not for meat or to feed starving families, but to decorate people’s houses with ivory. That is not acceptable.

As hon. Members have said, we need to stifle the demand and end corruption and illegal killing. What help can the Minister give to countries that are trying to stop illegal poaching? The training and equipping of rangers is perhaps the sort of help needed on the ground.

[Zac Goldsmith]

A staggering quantity of illegal wildlife trade happens online, so one way to deal with demand would be to tackle that trade online. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute and offering huge thanks to organisations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare that have done so much to persuade big online retailers to weed illegal wildlife trade out of the way they do business? Taobao, Alibaba and eBay have massively changed their policies as a consequence of campaigning by groups such as IFAW. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of long interventions and there is one more speech to go.

Heathrow Airport: Public Consultation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Henry. I thank the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) for bringing the issue to the House. I put on record that I am a very vocal supporter of the Heathrow extension, as is my party. We supported this to enhance the connectivity of Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is for this reason that we are also, in our relationship of confidence and supply with the Conservative party, looking at the end of the air passenger duty for Northern Ireland flights, which we hope will go further than that. Certainly it is our intention to look across the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) put his marker down. I am putting my marker down.

Let us be quite clear: we are not in decline mode; we are in build-up mode and we can do better. The key for us is the enhancement of connectivity in routes and flights. The Democratic Unionist party was the first political party in the United Kingdom to back Heathrow. We have always maintained that expansion will support growth in Northern Ireland and strengthen our great Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. More cargo travels from Belfast through Heathrow than any other UK airport. We need to continue the vital link and the supply chain between Northern Ireland’s businesses and their clients in every corner of the globe. That is a clear issue.

A 2017 report produced by the Freight Transport Association found that air cargo and night services in the United Kingdom is currently worth some £5.5 billion per annum or £20 million per working day. It estimates that the customs value of the typical export item shipped on a night service is two and half times that of standard air freight. The vast majority of the £5.5 billion, let us be clear, is achieved from productivity gains. In the wider economy, we all gain from connectivity—Northern Ireland gains and the rest of the United Kingdom gains —rather than just the operators of the service. These impacts are also spread geographically across the United Kingdom, with express and priority cargo services used by businesses based in all regions of the country. Northern Ireland is an integral part of this business and we rely on this service, the build-up in this service and the ability of the airport to carry that out at the correct times. Things go from Belfast City and Belfast International airport, to Heathrow, to the rest of the world. That is an example of connectivity. We are all gaining.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

I am sorry, but I am constrained by time.

The issue now arising is the question of who will pay for the £14 billion project. It cannot be the airline user in its totality, as this will clearly and undoubtedly take away from the viability of routes by upping the price and putting people off the service. I mentioned earlier about the air cargo. I had a quick conversation with a member of my staff, who was looking for the cheapest trip. That was the trip to Heathrow and it was also at night time, so for a girlies’ weekend away they were able to do that. I suggest to hon. Members here that, if they want to reciprocate and go to Belfast, we are very happy for that to happen.

The price very much indicates what happens when it comes to who pays. Heathrow passenger charges have trebled in the last decade. We cannot afford any increase. I look to the Minister for a very careful response. I support the expansion and register concern about the cost going completely to the end user. That is why I am asking the Government to step in and ensure that, as opposed to a little increase, simply no increase is acceptable.

To conclude, as a Northern Ireland MP who seems to be continually fighting to have parity with the rest of the mainland, I am fighting again for my corner of the wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be allowed to benefit from this expansion and not penalised with greater charges, which put businesses off from investing in Northern Ireland due to the connectivity, and which put tourists off from sampling the beauty and wonder that is found on our shores, as many hon. Members know. I ask the Minister gently to make clear that the costs should not and must not be at the expense of connectivity for Northern Ireland. We can all gain. Let us do it together.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is good news that we are discussing the TTIP which, as far as I am aware, is the most ambitious free trade agreement ever attempted. On these complex agreements, national legislators, in their worthy pursuit of job creation, growth and trade, do not always pay attention to the finer details.

Some years ago when I interviewed Ralph Nader, the consumer activist and occasional presidential candidate, about the North American Free Trade Agreement, he told me that even though Congress was set overwhelmingly to back the treaty, he was convinced from his discussions with members that few of them, if any, had bothered even to read the text. He eventually offered a substantial prize to any member who was willing publicly to answer 12 simple questions about NAFTA. Following a long pause, a strongly NAFTA-supporting Republican, Senator Hank Brown of Colorado, accepted the challenge and reserved the Senate Foreign Relations Committee room for the ordeal. The cameras and journalists were there and, to everyone’s amazement, he answered each of the 12 questions correctly, but when he had finished, he turned away from Ralph Nader to the cameras and said that having read the treaty, which he had not previously done, he realised just how awful it was, so he chose to do a U-turn and to vote against it.

At this stage, we do not have a huge amount to go on regarding the TTIP but, whatever one thinks about it, it clearly has serious implications and it merits close scrutiny. On the whole, free trade agreements are about lowering barriers to trade—that is their purpose—but, compared with the situation in other countries, there are relatively few barriers to trade between the EU and the US, so the main focus must be standards and regulations, with the goal of trying to harmonise them. However, it is hard to imagine that the process will involve any key standards going up; on the contrary, I suspect that we will see a spiral downwards. We only have to read several of the publications put forward by some of the most substantial big business lobby groups to see that they are openly talking about removing under the TTIP whole rafts of standards and regulations that businesses believe hinder their activities. One does not have to believe in a conspiracy theory; one just needs to read the communications of some of the companies that are playing an active role in the process.

We are already seeing an emphasis on lobbying with regard to food, about which several hon. Members have spoken, and it is difficult to imagine the harmonisation of food standards working in our interest. Europe believes that providing clear labelling for genetically modified food is a consumer right, but such practice is absolutely opposed by the vast majority of states in the US.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the subject of food, two companies in my constituency wanted to export to the United States, but the border controls and financial conditions to which they were subjected ensured that they could not be competitive there. They therefore had to franchise out in the United States, which meant that the company back home could not grow or create jobs here, which shows the unfairness of the system.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

There are so many differences between the US and the EU, and not only in the quality of standards, but in the approach to developing them. I cannot imagine a situation in which harmonising standards and regulations would work in the interests of the consumer. I have given the example of GM food labelling, but there are many others. A number of countries around the world, and indeed the EU as a whole, have chosen not to allow the import from the US of beef from cows fed a diet that includes the hormone ractopamine, because of the fairly grave health concerns. I suspect that most British consumers would support that position. Would that be challenged? Well, there is already plenty of talk among agribusiness in the United States that it should be.

Most worryingly, US agribusiness is strongly opposed to EU attempts to limit endocrine disruptors. The links between the use of such chemicals and the alarming increase in precocious puberty among young girls are not disputed. Will those standards that we have set across Europe be adhered to and maintained? That remains to be seen, but we know that plenty of lobby groups in the United States have their sights set on reducing those standards.

It is easy to imagine that regulatory convergence will mean chasing the lowest common denominator. It is worth noting that, according to a whole raft of freedom of information requests conducted by the Corporate Europe Observatory in the context of the TTIP, the Commission has met civil society groups just eight times over the course of those discussions, whereas it has met corporate lobby groups—I do not know how they are defined and am only repeating what has been reported—119 times.

I suspect that most Members across the House would agree that removing or simplifying unnecessary regulations, removing barriers to entry, particularly for small firms, and encouraging free trade are all laudable aims, but they need not happen at the expense of democracy. My concern is that the proposed ISDS mechanisms, which we have already heard a great deal about, will undermine democracy. Under those mechanisms, companies wishing to challenge a national regulation could effectively bypass the usual process and go straight to an investment tribunal. Often hugely important outcomes therefore rest on the shoulders of just three arbitrators—one is chosen by the company, another by the state and the third is a compromise of the two. It is hard to understand how this country would want or need such a system.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was asked recently—

Antibiotics (Intensive Farms)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suspect that that is part of the problem, but as I will come to later, I think it is also the case that the agribusiness sector in this country has had a disproportionate impact on policy. That is a point that I hope to impress during the debate.

As I was saying, there has been a near clean sweep of Ministers at both Departments, so this debate provides an opportunity to clarify Government policy. The Government are right to insist on better infection control in hospitals and changes in the way that antibiotics are prescribed by doctors. However, other than the brief answer that I quoted from the former Secretary of State, there has been virtually nothing from the Government that could in any way encourage vets and farmers to be similarly prudent. Not surprisingly, therefore, there has been little progress; on the contrary, analysis by the Soil Association of the Government’s statistics indicates that the overall use of antibiotics per animal on UK farms increased by 18% between 2000 and 2010, while the farm use of third and fourth-generation cephalosporins—drugs described by the Health Protection Agency as hospital workhorses—increased by over 500%.

Furthermore, recently published data from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate show that sales of fluoroquinolone antibiotics for use in veterinary medicine over the past two years have been 70% higher than they were in 2000. It is worth noting that when fluoroquinolones were first licensed for use in poultry in the UK in 1993, there was no registered antibiotic-resistant campylobacter in people who had not been treated with the antibiotics, but by 2007, almost half—46%—the campylobacter food poisoning cases caused by the most common strain were resistant. It is worth noting also that in 2008, the European Food Safety Authority said:

“A major source of human exposure to fluoroquinolone resistance via food appears to be poultry”.

Clearly, antimicrobials should be used to treat sick animals, and I do not think anyone would argue against that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he feel that the use by the farming sectors—whether pig, poultry or beef—of antibiotics is unnecessary, because there is a blanket use, rather than reacting to disease? Does he feel that that has a direct impact on us as human beings? Many people come to me and say that the antibiotics are not working, and they are getting three doses from the doctor. Is that feeding off what is happening?

[Zac Goldsmith]

Again, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I thank him for making it. I will come to that in more detail shortly.

There is no argument against treating sick animals with antimicrobials but, surely, not the most modern and medically important ones, especially when other antibiotics, which are not as critically important in human medicine, are available. I recognise that this topic does not lend itself easily to tabloid news, but there is a real, worrying chance that that could change. By overusing antibiotics, we risk ruining for future generations one of the great discoveries of our species. In short, we risk entering the post-antibiotics age.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know that some antibiotics have already been lost to resistance: for example, penicillin for staphylococcal wound infections, ampicillin for infections of the urinary tract and ciprofloxacin for treating gonorrhoea. Many more are under threat, and new antibiotics are increasingly hard to find and license. We are now using our reserve antibiotics, and worryingly, seeing the spread of resistance to them as well. For example, rises in resistance, such as those seen for E. coli, force doctors to use carbapenems, which were previously the reserve antibiotics for use when other treatments had completely failed. However, we are now using carbapenems much more and seeing the spread of resistance to them as well.

University of Cambridge researchers revealed the first cases in UK livestock of a new strain of the multi-resistant superbug MRSA. It is called ST398, and it has become endemic in European and north American pig populations and has spread to poultry and cattle. It is significant because, unlike most strains of staphylococcus aureus found in farm animals, it is readily able to transfer to humans. If not checked, that is likely to lead to rising community-acquired MRSA, just at the time that hospital-acquired MRSA is falling, due to sterling efforts by health professionals.