Ivory Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State gave a long list of those he wants to praise for their involvement in this, but will he join me in praising the rangers who do the work on the ground trying to defend elephants, rhinos and other animals against poachers? It is estimated that over 100 rangers a year lose their lives in violence because of the work they do.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point: the bravery and determination of those who do this work is outstanding. In countries such as Gabon individuals risk their lives to save elephants and safeguard the animals they love in a country to which they are deeply attached, and as it goes in Gabon it goes in many others countries as well.

The hon. Lady’s intervention also gives me an opportunity to thank our own armed services. As the Defence Secretary pointed out, only last week we dispatched more trained military personnel to support the work of rangers on the ground. That capacity of a country like ours to work together and use our expertise alongside the commitment of those from African nations will help us turn the tide and beat back the poachers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I very much welcome the Bill. Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Government have managed to introduce this 40-page Bill in a very busy parliamentary timetable but still have not found time to finalise legislation to ban wild animals in circuses? This week we have seen Slovakia become the latest country to introduce such a ban. The Wild Animals in Circuses Bill has been through prelegislative scrutiny, and it has been kicking around for years. It is a very short Bill. Why cannot we pass it now?

[Sue Hayman]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I would be pleased if the Secretary of State could announce when the Government will be banning wild animals in circuses. I am a sponsor of the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and it would be extremely helpful if the Secretary of State could bring it forward.

I reiterate my assurance that Labour will support the Ivory Bill on Second Reading, and I hope that both the Government and the House will give careful consideration to how we can strengthen the Bill both in Committee and at subsequent stages.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who has stated the Opposition’s support for the Bill. My hearty congratulations go to the real Secretary of State for introducing it.

We lose an elephant every 25 minutes, which is 20,000 elephants a year—we should all remember that incredibly simple fact. During this debate we have already lost two elephants. It is estimated that 100 years ago there was an elephant population of about 10 million, and the decline has accelerated. The great elephant census, published in August 2016, found that only 352,000 savanna elephants were left across the 18 countries surveyed—a 70% crash in numbers since 1979, when the total population stood at 1.3 million.

Encouraged by my then junior Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), and Charlie Mayhew, the chief executive of Tusk, I went to Lewa when I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Lewa is a brilliant example of how local landowners have created conservancies where the management of wildlife is jointly organised by local communities. The rangers, whom the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, are all working together, and the local community sees real value in the wildlife. As a result, poaching has been reduced in Kenya in the past couple of years. Lewa is a brilliant example of how, if a local community can see the value of wildlife, it will participate in its long-term regeneration.

A couple of years ago I went to the Kruger national park in South Africa. Whereas in Kenya there was a chronic lack of equipment, in South Africa there was a major general with 35 years’ experience in the South African army who had aeroplanes, helicopters and 700 brilliantly equipped rangers, but they lost four rhinos the weekend I was there. The poachers in the Kruger will move on to the wonderful, huge elephants once they have gone through the rhinos, and the reason is money. Northern Mozambique is miserably poor, and if a person can get one rhino horn out of the Kruger it will keep their community going and they will be a folk hero in their little town.

I have seen two contrasting sides to this issue. There is a big demand for this product, mainly from the far east, and the obvious answer is to grow more. I have thought about this, and that answer is simply not practical. We will never produce enough elephants or rhinos to satisfy the colossal demand. The only answer is to do what this Bill does, which is to sever the demand.

I returned from my trips and met the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend Lord Hague of Richmond, and we sat down and organised what became the largest world wildlife conference anywhere. We had great help from my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), the then Secretary of State for International Development, who has sadly left the Chamber. She completely got my point about conservancies and bringing in the local communities.

Over 40 countries participated at the conference. Sadly I could not participate because I had an emergency eye operation, but the conclusion of the conference was exactly what we wanted: recognition that the illegal wildlife trade and the poaching that feeds it have, in some places, reached unprecedented levels. In response to the crisis, the London conference

“aimed to reverse recent trends of increasing illegal wildlife trade through measures to eradicate the market…ensure effective legal frameworks and deterrents, strengthen enforcement, and support sustainable livelihoods and economic development.”

Also from the conference came the Elephant Protection Initiative, set up by five African countries, and only today I got an email with the latest update—that 18 African countries have now participated in the initiative.

That was all good, and we were world leaders at the time. Other countries then got ahead of us. President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced that they would introduce complete bans, and America did so in June 2016, with pretty tough exemptions. China, I think remarkably—this is a real credit to the Chinese Government—took decisions that have closed down whole factories. At the time, a Chinese Minister told me that 34 designated factories would shut and that China intended to shut down its whole ivory trade and manufacturing process by the end of 2017. In 2016 the French also brought in a near complete ban, with tight provisions on trade. We made the right announcements, but we did not actually take action. Meanwhile, those bans have had a significant impact on the value of ivory. It was about $2,000 a kilogram, and it is now about $700 a kilogram.

Our party promised a complete ban in our 2010 manifesto and, in effect, a ban in our 2015 manifesto. Lord Hague and I had not given up at that point, and we worked with non-governmental organisations such as Stop Ivory, Tusk and the Born Free Foundation. I also held meetings with representatives of the antiques trade; the chairman of the British Art Market Federation, Anthony Browne; the chief executive officer of the Association of Art & Antiques dealers, Rebecca Davies; and the secretary-general of the British Antique Dealers’ Association, Mark Dodgson. We came up with a text that they would have been happy to put in our manifesto, which reads as follows:

“As hosts of the 2014 London Conference and the upcoming 2018 London Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference, we will continue to lead the world in stopping the trade in illegal wildlife products, which is responsible for the poaching that kills thousands of elephants, rhinos, tigers and other species, negatively impacting livelihoods and security. In response to overwhelming international opinion, expressed at both the CITES and IUCN meetings held in 2016, we will proceed with our commitment to introduce tighter legislation to close the domestic ivory market with appropriate exemptions covering objects of artistic, cultural and historical significance. We will further commit to support the range states of species impacted by illegal wildlife trade, in particular for elephants, rhinos and tigers and will continue to oppose any call for resumption in trade of products from these species.”

When we see the number of people who have signed the petition and who have reacted, we see that had that been in our manifesto, the result of the election a year ago might have been different. It is a great pity that that was omitted from our manifesto. I really believe that what the Secretary of State has brought forward today does honour that jointly agreed statement, and it should encourage a speedy passage for this Bill.

Let me give a crude summary of where I think the antiques trade is at the moment. I think it admits that the Bill, as drafted, is tighter than it would like, but it can live with it. Anthony Browne has written to me, saying:

“Our primary concern now is that the Government’s exemptions should not be made more restrictive by amendment during the bill’s passage through Parliament.”

That is a very helpful statement from the antiques trade. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who has sadly now left his seat, the Two Million Tusks report discovered that only 1.49% of lots for sale in auction houses contained ivory. Given that the total antiques market is worth about £9.2 billion, we see that we are talking about a round of drinks and the trade can probably manage without that business, although this should not be tightened up further.

I am fully aware that other Members are keen to speak, but I wish briefly to mention a few amendments that the Secretary of State might like to consider in Committee. It is obvious that exports, especially those to the world’s largest illegal ivory markets, are our most direct contribution to the global trade in poached ivory. An approximate analysis of the impact of the ban as proposed in the Bill is that about 25% of currently traded ivory items will fall under the exemptions. The UK exported about 35,000 ivory items to Asia from 2010 to 2015, which means that even with the exemptions in place, exports would still have totalled more than 8,000 items. That would mean the UK would still have been among the highest exporters of antique ivory in the world, even on the basis of the proposed ban.

The overriding concern is that the sale of such important items to markets in Asia fuels ivory’s desirability in the minds of consumers. Most people will of course not be able to afford to buy the rarest and most important items that this exemption is to cover, but seeing those pieces being acquired by people in their country will reinforce ivory as a luxury commodity that people wish to own, fuelling desire for items that are affordable, many of which are likely to be fakes from newly poached ivory. The exemptions in the Bill must therefore be incredibly rigorously defined and enforced.

As a start, I wonder whether the Secretary of State would consider having an annual register of how many items exemptions have been issued for under the historical, artistic and cultural definition each year, with a full description and pictures of each item. Such an annual register would be publicly available, and it would demonstrate the commitment that this exemption is for the rarest and most important items only and would allow public scrutiny.

Let me make a few brief suggestions as to how to improve the Bill. Clause 3(1) would be greatly improved if it were to specify documentary evidence to support the application and establish the legality of the ivory item, including age and provenance, as well as proof of identity and the owner’s address. Documentation will not always be available, but the lack of documentation would be a factor in the assessment. This applies in particular to online sales and exports. I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide a little more detail on how he thinks these regulations will apply to online sales, where we know flagrant cheating takes place. The declaration provided for in clause 3(1)(d) should include confirmation that the dealing complies with the convention on international trade in endangered species, or CITES, and the Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations, or COTES.

The exemption certificate specified in clause 4(1) should also include the name of the owner, given the reference to an exemption certificate being issued to a “different person”. In general, a new owner of an item subject to an exemption certificate should be required to register their ownership, whether on a prohibited dealing or not, so that a record of ownership is maintained. That will help the register. On clause 4(5), more safeguards are needed on issuing replacement certificates. An item could have several replacement certificates, which could be used to sell items illegally. Under clause 4(5)(b), how could someone legally acquire an item but not obtain the certificate? Careful attention to the numbering system might resolve that issue. On clause 6, we need a clarification of what a “portrait miniature” is—we need a definition.

Importantly, on clause 9(5), the exemption does not apply to items that consist “only of unworked ivory” and therefore excludes tusks. I understand that that is the opposite of what was intended. This is the only reference in the Bill to unworked ivory, and specifying it in this provision calls into question what is meant in the rest of the Bill. Those words should therefore be removed.

The defence of ignorance in clause 12 is a real concern, particularly as it is well known that that the illegal trade is fuelled by unscrupulous traders marketing ivory as a bone or as ivory sourced from other species, such as a mammoth. There should therefore be a basic sanction based on strict liability.

The Secretary of State should also be able to include other ivory-bearing species not listed in the CITES appendices in clause 35(3). As the Born Free Foundation has indicated, there has been an increase in the purchasing of hippo and other non-elephant ivory in the UK to replace elephant ivory in the internal trade. The BFF infers that the legal and illegal trades are targeting these other species, as the Government’s focus is on elephant ivory. Given that the total number of hippo in Africa is only about 25% of the figure for the elephant population, a ban must be careful to ensure that it does not unintentionally place these species under yet more pressure. It would therefore be sensible to specify hippos in the Bill now, rather than to have the delay of putting through a statutory instrument later.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about extending this provision to other species. Subspecies of hippo, warthogs, walruses and whales are all in the CITES appendix of endangered species, so the approach being taken does not seem to make sense. We know that this will be the only time we have an Ivory Bill before this House for many years to come, so if we are going to try to protect those species, it makes sense for us to do it now, in this Bill.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support and I totally agree: if we have the option to put this in, which the clause gives us, we should just get it in the Bill. We know that there will quickly be a diversion to hippos if we do not provide for that.

I am fully aware that others want to speak, so I come to my last point, which is about enforcement. I had interesting negotiations with our current Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary about funding the national wildlife crime unit, and I am pleased to say that that funding is to run until 2020. We would like a strong, firm reassurance from the Minister that this legislation will need enforcing and will need the right level of expertise. The wildlife unit is absolutely brilliant; it is located just south of the river, in a strange suburb where there is a large, redundant Russian tank. For those who cannot find it, I should say that it is painted in party colours. I recommend going to see the NWCU, however, as it does fine work. We need clarity that it will be beefed up and properly resourced for the future. On the same grounds, the CITES Border Force team at Heathrow needs sufficient levels of manpower and resources, as they will be our frontine of defence against illegal imports and organised criminal activity coming into the UK.

The London illegal wildlife trade conference is back on 10 and 11 October. With this Bill, we have a wonderful opportunity to regain our leadership on this issue. How quickly can the Secretary of State get this Bill, which we all support, through its parliamentary process and on the statute book? I will support the Bill this evening.

Fur Trade

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It is always difficult to present the results of an e-petition, particularly when so many people want to intervene. He did a sterling job. I also thank the more than 109,000 people who signed the e-petition. That shows the strength of support across our constituencies for a ban on fur sales in the UK.

In my view, we should avoid all exploitation, abuse and slaughter of animals where we can. Fur farming is just a tiny part of that.

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Sadly, too much of the fashion and beauty industries rely on cruelty to animals. Does my hon. Friend agree that, no matter what, cruelty and suffering cannot be the price of fashion?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree. Thankfully, we have made great strides in recent years in banning cosmetic testing on animals. I am not totally averse to all animal testing. People might assume that I would be averse, but I would make an exception in cases of important medical research where there is no alternative. However, people can live without personal vanity and frivolity. There are sustainable, ethical alternatives on the market for clothes, cosmetics, household products and other things that have not been banned from animal testing. In such cases we ought to be pushing for progress. That is why I am speaking today. Although I would like to see far more progress across the board in terms of animal exploitation and cruelty, I am happy to be here, supported by colleagues who are also in favour of a ban.

As we have heard, fur farming was banned in England and Wales in 2000, and in Scotland two years later, on the grounds of public morality. The fact that imported fur produced using the same methods is still allowed is fundamentally illogical and surely immoral too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has dealt with the legal position. I tabled a lot of questions at one point about foie gras. Why, if we banned it in this country on the grounds of public morality, could we somehow accept that it was fine for the French to do it and send it over here for people to have in their Fortnum & Mason hampers? There is a strong legal case for us banning it even if we do not leave the European Union.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Surely the reason that there is so much cross-party support behind this motion is because we all feel so compassionate. It is not the details of what happened. It is just a feeling of compassion that makes us all support what the hon. Lady is saying.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I totally agree. That is why so many people signed the e-petition. I would like to see people’s compassion extending to other animals, such as farm animal welfare, but I will not go there today—we would have substantially less consensus.

A lot of our fur imports come from countries that have lower animal welfare standards than the UK has, even before we introduced the fur farming ban. In some countries, the standards are simply non-existent. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I am a member of, has just conducted an inquiry into fake faux fur, where people are misled into buying real fur when they think they are buying cheap faux fur. We heard about the conditions on some of the fur farms in other countries.

The idea of ethical fur farming, even in countries which purport to be high-welfare, has been shown time and again to be a complete fiction. A recent investigation by the Daily Mirror into Saga-certified fur farms in Finland found morbidly obese foxes that had been grossly overfed and selectively bred to have large folds of skin so that they would produce more fur. This kind of breeding causes an array of health problems for the foxes, including poor reproduction, metabolic disorders and even DNA damage, which cannot easily be identified by the brief visual inspection required for a fur farm to become certified. One awful symptom seen repeatedly is foxes having bent and malformed feet, which occurs due to their forced obesity. That is hugely painful for the animals and severely impedes their mobility, sight and ability to breathe. There is a parallel with how birds are force-fed for the production of foie gras, which leads to their inability to lift themselves off the ground because they are so obese.

This is not just happening on one rogue farm on a bad day. A year later, the Daily Mirror went back and found the exact same conditions. Unfortunately, rather than the animal welfare charities cherry-picking the worst examples of fur farming, I have been told that the only cherry-picking taking place is filtering out the most graphic injuries and deformities. Investigations have recorded incidents of cannibalism, infanticide and severe, untreated wounds. Instead of a so-called humane death, there are reports of animals being beaten and stamped to death, and of some even being skinned alive.

Even if we do not look at those worst-case scenarios, the best condition that animals on a fur farm can hope for is to be kept for their whole life in wire-floored cages, which are thousands of times smaller than their natural habitats, while being denied basic behavioural needs such as hunting or swimming, with no mental stimulation and constant stress from being in unnatural social groups and situations, before being killed by gassing or electrocution. No one could argue that that standard of life for an animal on a fur farm constitutes a good or happy life.

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare stated as far back as 2001 that the typical cage in fur farms—not just the worst cage, but that used most frequently—

“does not provide for important needs of foxes”

or mink. As a result, abnormal behaviours are far from unusual. In fact, they are “widespread”.

The UK’s ban on fur farming was introduced only after our Farm Animal Welfare Council spent years gathering evidence, eventually concluding that fur farms are simply unable to satisfy even the most basic needs of the wild animals kept in them. It explicitly stated that it was not possible to safeguard the welfare of animals kept on fur farms.

Even more distressingly, research has shown that the environment of fur-farmed animals is so impoverished and alien to their natural behaviours that it is impossible to rehabilitate them. Fur farming is causing animals to have permanent brain dysfunction through sensory and motor deprivation during development. This dysfunction can be genetically transmitted from mothers to their offspring. Why do we continue to allow this industry to flourish through allowing millions of pounds’ worth of imports and sales into the UK? As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, why is it seen as okay to outsource the cruelty overseas when we do not see it as an acceptable practice in this country?

[Giles Watling]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is correlation between exporting cruelty elsewhere by importing fur and live exports, where we grow animals in this country, then pack them into crates and take them overseas where they can be abused?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would be more than happy to support the hon. Gentleman in calling for a ban on live exports. At the moment, I understand there is a ban on animals being taken overseas for slaughter, but not for fattening. That seems to me to be a strange distinction. Surely we ought to be stamping out the exporting and transporting of animals in inhumane, cramped conditions.

I want to briefly mention the evidence we saw in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Some people might argue that it is up to individual members of the public to exercise choice as to whether they want to boycott products that contain animal fur or shops that sell such products. Humane Society International’s recent investigations have shown that mislabelling of real fur as fake fur, or fur products having no labelling at all, is rife on the high street, whether by active disregard or innocent oversight. Complex, multi-country and subcontracted supply chains mean that shops often just do not know what is in their products by the time they arrive in the UK.

I was reassured by the evidence from the likes of Amazon, which seemed truly committed to trying to stamp out real fur sales. It talked about tightening up a lot of processes. Obviously it was trying to put the best gloss on that, but I felt it was genuine in its desire to address this.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I sought to make this point earlier, but I will make it again. We must not and cannot absolve the retailers from their duty of care. It is absolutely vital that people understand that this trade is revolting and that they should have no part of it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is exactly why the Select Committee took evidence from the likes of Amazon and Camden Market. A lot of these items are found on market stalls, but they have also been found in shops such as Boots, Tesco, FatFace, Groupon, House of Fraser and Missguided—well-established chains that need to get their own houses in order. Some of them had explicit fur-free promises, which they need to live up to.

I reject, too, any claims from the fur lobby about its “Welfur” mark. On two occasions—once at the APPG on animal welfare, and once when the fur lobby gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—I have heard that a cruelty-free version of fur is on offer, but the fur trade is a cruel, ugly business, no matter how it is dressed up and marketed, and no matter how glamorous the end products or the people who might wear them are.

I implore the Minister to take heed of this debate and to recognise that it is indicative of much wider public support for a ban. He is a great enthusiast for Brexit, so whether or not we are allowed to do it under current rules, I hope he sees it as something that we can do in future.

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

I am a very new MP—I am only a year in—but more than 200 people in Lincoln responded to the petition, so it is the single biggest issue since I was elected. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for many MPs, it has had a huge response?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes, and that is often the case. I had 500 emails about puppy farming, which was an earlier iteration of the campaign. I should say hello to Marc from that campaign, who is in the Gallery yet again—he is here more often than I am.

Let us stop outsourcing this cruelty and introduce a ban on all fur imports as soon as possible. It is the humane, moral and right thing to do, and it is something that the public want us to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate, which is sponsored by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I thank him for his constructive, thoughtful and comprehensive exposition.

By way of preamble—that is never a good way to begin a sentence—in recent weeks and months, I, like others, have spoken in this Chamber calling for a United Nations ban on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals. I have spoken on puppy smuggling, puppy farms, the ivory trade and a range of animal welfare issues. My constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran care deeply about them, as do people right across the United Kingdom. They are hugely important to our constituents. We are a conglomeration of countries—a political union—that cares very deeply about animals.

This is an auspicious day in Scotland, because today we become the first country in the United Kingdom to enact legislation banning the use of wild animals in circuses. I sincerely hope that other parts of the UK and Europe follow us.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Lady makes a pertinent point. I have been told so many times that we cannot introduce a unilateral ban on wild animals in circuses because the EU would not let us, yet we hear that many other countries have done so—Slovakia did so this week. Clearly, being in the European Union was being used as an excuse.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I do not want to wander too far away from the focus of this debate, but we heard today that there might be issues with banning fur sales while we are still in Europe. We need to be careful about finding reasons not to do things. We can always find 100 reasons not to do something, but if the political will is there, we should make a greater effort to do what needs to be done.

As we have heard, fur farming has been illegal across the UK for a considerable time. That ban happened as a response to the public simply making it known to politicians that fur farms were an affront to decency that simply could not and would not be tolerated any longer. Consumers across the UK have been leading the debate, as they often do when it comes to ethical choices, particularly in relation to animal rights. Each year more than 100 million animals around the globe are killed just for their fur, either through being trapped in the wild, which accounts for about 15% of those killed, or from fur factory farms, which account for about 85% of those killed.

The animals farmed for their fur—most commonly, but not exclusively, mink—are wild animals. They are held in the most appalling and unnatural conditions, as was set out clearly and chillingly by the hon. Members for Cambridge, for Clacton (Giles Watling), for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Animals are held in appalling conditions until they are eventually killed for their fur, usually by gassing or electrocution. Those trapped in the wild are most commonly caught in leg traps. Some animals chew through their own limbs to escape and others are left for days until the trapper returns and kills them by stamping or kneeling on them, taking care, of course, not to damage the animal’s pelt.

The sale of fur in the UK has been in steady decline over the past 30 years or so. I am no fashion icon, Mr Davies, as you can probably tell, but fur products have become distinctly unfashionable in many quarters. As I have said, consumers are way ahead of us in Westminster. They have made an ethical choice and have been turning away from fur over the past 30 years, although the volumes of sales are still very disturbing, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) pointed out—I thank her for her powerful speech.

We know how consumers feel and we see the evidence in our inboxes. I do not often say this, but the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is absolutely correct. The trade is simply not needed. A ban on the sale of fur products is important to keep those loathsome and vile products out of the United Kingdom. We have an opportunity here to begin to wash the blood from our hands. As we have heard, other countries will follow. The question that Parliament has to decide—I know the Minister is listening carefully—is whether it wants to lead or whether it wants to follow. The change is coming. The question is how quickly we implement it.

The earlier comment made by the hon. Member for North Dorset was correct: we must deal robustly with ruthless operators in the supply chain who, when we have a ban, will try to pass off real fur as fake fur. We must make sure we are ready for that.

As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) pointed out, it is not good enough to wait for international welfare standards to improve and simply make the issue go away. A ban would hasten improvements in animal welfare internationally, not impede them. We cannot, as my former head teacher used to say, move at the rate of the slowest caravan.

The UK public, in numbers that are growing all the time, are appalled by the suffering caused to animals by the fur trade. A YouGov poll in February of this year showed that 69% of the British public support a ban on the import and sale of real fur, regardless of their political affiliation. It cuts through any voting behaviour and other belief systems people have. The World Trade Organisation has set a precedent for a ban, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out. Following challenges by Norway and Canada, the World Trade Organisation upheld the right of the EU to ban trade in seal products on the grounds of public morality. It noted that commercial seal hunts pose inherent dangers to animal welfare and the ruling was upheld on appeal. The door is open for a ban on the sale of animal fur in the UK. The question is whether the Minister will allow us to walk through it.

All lucrative endeavours bring with them powerful lobbyists such as we have seen with the tobacco industry. The latest example in the fur industry is an organisation called WelFur. I am sure the Minister is aware of the comprehensive and rigorous “Scientific Review of Animal Welfare Standards and ‘WelFur’”, which concluded:

“WelFur is not able to address the major welfare issues for mink and foxes farmed for fur...or the serious inadequacies in current labelling and regulation.”

I am sure the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood also pointed that out.

For me, and I believe for many people in the UK, it is quite simple when we get right down to it—we have heard it said repeatedly in the debate. If we banned fur farms because of the cruelty they inflict on animals, it is simply not sustainable—indeed, it is actively hypocritical —to allow the sale of real fur in the UK. It suggests that the suffering inflicted on animals for fur is absolutely fine as long as it is not done in the UK. It is not fine. Probably everybody in this Chamber believes that, and every constituent who has contacted me believes it. If something is wrong because it is cruel, it is wrong regardless of where it occurs. The best message we can send today is to show how strongly we believe that by refusing to allow real fur into the UK for sale. We have outsourced the cruelty, as the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood has pointed out, and it is not good enough. No matter what animal we are talking about, the cruelty inflicted is simply not justifiable or acceptable.

I will end by urging the Minister to screw his courage to the sticking place and implement a ban on the sale of animal fur in the UK as soon as possible. The House supports it and our constituents support it and want it. Let us make it happen. I have no doubt that other countries will follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I was going to return to the issue of trade. The point is that it is not possible to make a difference just through the restriction on trade to the UK, because we represent a tiny portion—about 0.25%—of the entire global market. We would probably be more effective agitating for change through international forums such as the World Organisation for Animal Health, CITES and others to get improvements and further restrictions, and to encourage other countries to adopt the sorts of measures we have adopted. The Government recognise that some consumers do not wish to purchase fur on ethical grounds. As a consumer protection measure, there are laws about the legal fur trade to ensure consumers can obtain sufficient information about whether a product is composed wholly or partly of fur so they can make an informed choice.

I recognise, as several hon. Members pointed out—including my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) in an intervention—that concerns have been expressed recently that real fur is being passed off as fake fur, especially in low-cost items. That is the subject of an inquiry by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to which my noble Friend Lord Gardiner gave evidence. The hon. Member for Bristol East cast aspersions on Lord Gardiner’s knowledge of these issues, but I believe he has looked at them in depth and understands them well.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I did not mention Lord Gardiner.

[George Eustice]

I am sorry; I would like to correct that. I misremembered who made that point—it was the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). I assure hon. Members that my noble Friend Lord Gardiner has looked at these issues in great detail and, I believe, has a deep understanding of them.

The hon. Member for Cambridge asked about levels of trade. Various figures have been mentioned. I am told that, in 2017, we imported £63 million-worth of fur and articles with fur, and exported £33 million-worth of fur and articles with fur, which suggests that about £30 million-worth of those imports was for UK use.

Let me turn to some of the points made by hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman talked about WTO rules, and I broadly agree with him. I have argued many times in this Chamber that nothing in the WTO rules precludes us from taking stances on ethical grounds and from advancing animal welfare. As he pointed out, an important test case relating to seal fur and seal skins was upheld. It is not perfectly straightforward—the WTO has not upheld other cases—but there is case law that allows individual national Governments to advance such measures on ethical grounds, particularly relating to animal welfare.

It is a little more complicated when it comes to the European Union, because where there are EU harmonising measures relevant to the movement of fur—including the EU animal by-product regulations—any limitation of where such products can be sold and any national restriction would need to meet the requirement of article 114 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. That would require us to have the consent of other countries or cede the final decision to the European Commission. It is a complex picture but, for political reasons, it is unlikely that we would be able to advance that while we are in the EU. I suspect that is why the previous Labour Government, when they introduced the ban on fur farming, stopped short of trying to introduce a restriction on trade.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood made a very important point about the use of leghold traps. As I said earlier, under current EU regulations there is a prohibition on the import of furs or fur products from some wild animal species originating in countries where they are caught by leghold traps or trapping methods that do not meet international standards of humane trapping. The furs of animals caught in leghold traps are prohibited from import into the UK, and there has to be certification to confirm the country of origin, so I believe that the existing regulations cover that.

Some hon. Members made an important point about the saliency of this issue to the public. I agree and concur with that completely. The lion’s share of the correspondence coming into DEFRA relates to animal welfare. This really does matter. I was not aware that we had ever blamed the European Union for not introducing a ban on wild animals in circuses—indeed, that has been Government policy for a couple of years now. We are committed to introducing that Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset talked about our ability to use soft power. I agree with much of what he said on that issue but, as I pointed out earlier, I believe we will be more effective if we advance that soft power through forums such as the World Organisation for Animal Health, CITES and others in order to get a wider uptake of the types of bans and restrictions that we have in place here in the UK.

There have been many thoughtful contributions to this important debate, including from hon. Members who have been campaigning on the issue for many years. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge on introducing the debate, and all hon. Members on their contributions.

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The existing motor companies will play a critical role in ensuring that we can move towards a more sustainable and cleaner method of providing personal transport. He is absolutely right that hybrids will have a role to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be saying more about that in due course, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and other Members who represent manufacturing and industrial sectors for the constructive way in which they have helped to bring people together.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Environment Secretary gets very frustrated with the Treasury dragging its feet on some of the initiatives he wants to push forward. It was recently reported that the £400 million plan for electric car charging infrastructure is being held up by the Treasury because it has not even recruited somebody to be in charge of the private sector investment element—it says it will recruit this summer—so will he please put a rocket under the Treasury and tell it that while people want to buy electric cars, they will not do so unless the infrastructure is in place?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for trying to present the issue in the way she did. The truth is that I cannot think of anyone in this House, apart from possibly my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who is cleaner—keener, rather—on investment. [Laughter.] He is very clean. Cleanliness is next to godliness. I do not think there is anyone in this House who is keener on moving towards ultra low emission vehicles than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As Transport Secretary and in his current role, he has led efforts across the Government to make sure we are moving in the right direction. I do not think it is at all fair to criticise him or the Treasury in that regard.

Sale of Puppies

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I believe that Godiva has previously won Westminster dog of the year, along with her friend, so it is good to have an update on her. Does the hon. Lady agree that one particular problem is that people are not aware of where popular dogs, such as French bulldogs, are coming from? They are paying huge amounts of money, assuming—because of the cost—that their dog will have been well treated. People going for those popular, fashionable dogs need to be particularly vigilant.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I wholeheartedly agree. As I said, when I bought Godiva, I made that mistake: having paid £550 for her, I thought she would have been from a decent, legitimate organisation, but clearly that was not the case.

Lucy died in December 2016, and I am happy to say that her later years were happier than her beginnings. We must do more to save countless other animals from suffering similar horrors to Lucy. Pup Aid has been campaigning on overbreeding of females since 2009, and I would like to take this opportunity to again congratulate Marc Abraham on his hard work on the campaign, as well as Lisa Garner, who is present and who rescued Lucy and ensured that she had a good end to her life.

As the hon. Lady has said, the public clearly remain naive to the horrors of the puppy farming trade, and that is why legislation is necessary to protect not just the puppies but their mothers as well as the public from facilitating this abhorrent trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I am sure that even if this had been a contentious and divisive debate, you would have been impeccably neutral, Sir Roger, but may I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that you have done in this area? You will be pleased to know that there was a strong degree of consensus throughout the discussion of this issue.

In addition, I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on the way that he introduced the debate and on being so generous with the number of interventions that he took from some Members who were obviously unable to stay for the full duration of the debate.

Finally, I congratulate the supporters of this e-petition, which has secured so many signatures in such a short time and attracted so many Members to Westminster Hall today to speak passionately on this important issue.

As several hon. Members will know, I have championed improved animal welfare when it comes to puppies and dog-breeding establishments for a number of years; in fact, since I was a Back Bencher. I advocated a reduction in the threshold before puppy breeders required a licence. The background to this debate, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, is that the way that we treat puppies in the first few months of their life is, just as it is with a human child, incredibly important to their development.

The welfare charities in this sector can give many tragic examples of young dogs or puppies that come into their care and that they are simply unable to rehome because it is not safe to place them with a family. That is due to the abusive and neglectful way that they were raised in the first few months of their life. For me, therefore, tackling the way that we regulate and license dog breeders is particularly important.

The second issue that has long needed addressing is the introduction of new regulations to tackle the growth of internet or online trading. Some very good work has been done by the Pet Advertising Advisory Group and I commend all those organisations that have signed up to the group’s code. It is a robust code and the group has done well to draw it up.

One of the things we have done, which I will come on to, is strengthen the rules around online trading and the way that we license those who trade online, because there had been some doubt regarding the previous pets legislation, which dated back to the 1950s, about whether online traders were caught or covered by it. However, we have now clarified that matter.

The culmination of this process, during which I and others raised several points over a number of years, was a consultation on these matters to strengthen the pet licensing regime. I am very pleased to say that the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 passed on to the statute book earlier this year, and those regulations provide statutory minimum welfare standards that all licensed dog breeders and vendors of pet animals must meet. This is the first time that licensed breeders and sellers of dogs will be required to meet statutory minimum welfare standards.

Previously, those statutory standards were set out only in guidance but now they are a requirement before a licence can be obtained, which brings greater consistency. We have developed the new standards with the welcome involvement of the Canine and Feline Sector Group, which represents a broad range of vets, local authorities, the pet industry and welfare charities.

The new regulations and the new statutory code that goes with them achieve a number of things. First, there are clear regulatory requirements for licensed breeders and sellers to protect the welfare of the animals. Secondly, we have lowered the threshold for the number of puppy litters that someone is allowed to breed in a year so that more breeders can be brought into a licensing regime. That means that anyone in the business of both breeding and selling dogs will need a licence and, irrespective of whether they claim to be in the business of breeding, they will need a licence if they breed three or more litters a year. Thirdly, anyone selling pets commercially will need a licence, whether they are trading online or they are a pet shop. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) raised. Licensed breeders must show puppies alongside their mother before a sale is made and they can sell only their own puppies.

In addition, pet advertisements will now require the seller’s licence number and country of origin and the residence of the pet to be included. The sale of puppies and kittens under the age of eight weeks is now banned, which closes a loophole that existed for some pet shops regarding some pets. Licensed sellers must also show puppies to the purchaser before a sale is completed, an intervention we have made to try to curtail the growth of online trading and, finally, a new licence condition applies to dog breeders to prevent the breeding of dogs with harmful genetic disorders, which addresses the point raised by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the tragedy of pets often having defects and health problems because they have not been properly bred or cared for.

The 2018 regulations come into force on 1 October and, taken together, represent a significant improvement in pet animal welfare legislation in this country.

[Kerry McCarthy]

What the Minister has outlined is very good as far as it goes, but it deals only with the more respectable end of the market, tightening up regulation there. Does he have any figures on how many puppies are bought and sold on the streets of the UK through the illegal trade—illegally imported, trafficked—as opposed to coming through breeders who are likely to abide by the regulations?

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that point and to the specific issue of the debate. The measures in the new regulations substantially tighten up areas where there were weaknesses in the law. In particular, bringing greater clarity to the fact that online traders must have a licence, and lowering the threshold of the number of puppies someone can breed before they require a licence, are significant steps forward. However, I am aware that for some years now several people have been calling for third-party sales to be dealt with and for there to be a ban on such sales—for puppies in particular and, called for by a number of others, for kittens.

It is fair to say that although the petition was launched only on 1 March, the public reaction has been rapid. It has already attracted more than 140,000 signatures, which shows the strength of feeling people in this country have for the welfare of dogs. However, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, even before that, the Government had made it clear that it was their intention to consider the issue. On 8 February, we announced a call for evidence to consider a ban on third-party sales of puppies and kittens. Such a ban means that pet shops, pet dealers and other outlets and licensed sellers of puppies and kittens would be unable to sell them unless they themselves had bred them. The implication is that anyone seeking to acquire a puppy or kitten would have to look to either an authorised breeder or an animal rescue or rehoming organisation.

It has been suggested to us that a ban could achieve several things. First, it could ensure consistency with Government advice that purchasers should seek to see puppies or kittens with their mother, which goes beyond the new regulations for licensed breeders and applies the condition to everyone. It could also assist purchasers to make informed choices based on seeing a puppy or kitten with its mother, and encourage responsible buying decisions. It could incentivise welfare improvements in high-risk commercial dog-breeding establishments by ensuring transparency, accountability and appropriate remuneration for breeders. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it could prevent the sale of puppies that had not been bred to recognised standards of welfare in this country. The Government, therefore, consider there to be merit in exploring that further. I am aware that there are consistent, though difficult-to-quantify, concerns about puppies that are bred overseas, smuggled illegally into the UK and then sold out of the boots of cars at service stations, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling).

At the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs we have been involved since 2015 in an operation to tackle the scourge of underage puppies being smuggled into the UK, something I feel strongly about. When I was responsible for this part of the brief in 2015, although we were doing work to strengthen regulations, I was concerned about the reports of large numbers of puppies being smuggled, particularly from the Irish Republic and east European countries, to be sold in the UK. Since 2015, our vets from the Animal and Plant Health Agency have been stationed at a number of ports and in just three years we have seized more than 700 puppies that were considered to be under 12 weeks old, the minimum before which they are able to be transported. That evidence of underage puppies being smuggled into the country suggests there could be a problem there that we ought to address, which is why we have run a call for evidence.

The call for evidence ran from 8 February to 2 May and we received about 350 responses, which we are currently analysing. The next step would, of course, be to consult on specific options. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) invited me to make her cry by making an announcement today. I will not be doing so today; I will stop just short of it, but hon. Members will be pleased to know that we anticipate being likely to introduce a consultation based on the early feedback from the call for evidence. They will, however, have to wait a little longer to see further details.

I want now to address a few wider issues, in particular regarding sentencing, because the pet licensing measures are only part of our work. We are also taking action to improve animal welfare in other areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last September that we will increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years in prison. There was an intervention earlier on the shadow Minister regarding likely sentences. That would obviously be a matter for the consultation, but any such step would be likely to be taken within the framework of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The current sentencing guidelines refer to an unlimited fine or a maximum custodial sentence of six months and, as I say, we have made it clear that we want to raise that maximum sentence. It will always be important for an individual judge on an individual case to be able to reach an appropriate sentence based on the particular circumstances.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister mentioned that 90 puppies, I think, had been seized while being illegally imported. What happened to the people who were responsible for that illegal trafficking? Were they fined or jailed? Do we have any idea what happened to them?

[George Eustice]

There were prosecutions. Actually, some 700 puppies were seized in the course of three years for being under the age of 12 weeks. When we were looking at the issue around a year ago, I asked officials whether there was a pattern of it being a small number of individuals, but generally speaking it was a diverse range of individuals often doing one-off trades rather than high-velocity trades. Others are using different people to bring animals in. It is difficult to discern a pattern of it being, for example, a small number of people who are very difficult to challenge. There have been prosecutions in the past, including through Operation Bloodhound a couple of years ago. I understand there have also been prosecutions related to some of the interventions.

Plastic Bottles and Coffee Cups

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) not only on securing this debate but on her excellent leadership of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am proud to be a member.

It is clear that the public want us to act. The right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made a very good speech. She spoke about her local schools and how enthused schoolchildren are about this issue. Just this week I received some brilliant letters from year 4 pupils at Wicklea Academy in my constituency. They demonstrated not only a real understanding of the issue but clear-eyed astonishment that, say, black plastic containers could be used for ready meals when we know they are not recycled. They asked me how that could possibly be justified.

Huge credit must go to “Blue Planet II” for raising awareness and creating momentum behind the campaign. Whenever I mention things like “Blue Planet II” I have to mention the BBC natural history unit, which is of course based in Bristol—the people of Bristol deserve some credit. “Blue Planet II” brought into our homes, in amazing, vivid detail, how wonderful and extraordinary the habitats and wildlife of our seas and oceans are, and just how precious a natural environment it is, which made it all the more distressing when we saw the episode with sea life being cut open and plastic being pulled from the sea life’s stomachs. We saw the terrible damage that plastic pollution can do.

The Government have made the right noises so far, but action has been limited and slightly disappointing. They have promised a deposit return scheme, which is one of the report’s key recommendations. The scheme will be excellent but, in other respects, the action has been limited to low-hanging fruit such as the ban on the wash-off version of microbeads in cosmetic products.

The Government have talked about ending the sale of plastic straws, stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. Again I credit a Bristol organisation, City to Sea, which has been campaigning, particularly on cotton buds, for a few years and has approached all the major retailers and manufacturers, many of which have managed to change their products. In many cases, instead of using plastic, they now use compacted cardboard or something else that is far more environmentally friendly.

The Treasury announced in November, and re-announced this spring, a call for evidence on changes to the tax system to reduce single-use plastics, which, as we have heard, worked incredibly well with plastic bags. I would be interested to hear what products will be banned and what products will be subject to a surcharge. There is a fine line between discouraging use—reducing use to a much lower level but still allowing some use—and banning the products altogether.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who I am generally happy to support and congratulate on the progress he has made on environmental issues, speaks of making the UK a world leader in resource efficiency, but his Department has a marked lack of enthusiasm for the EU circular economy package, which could be transformative not just in how we deal with waste and resources but in the number of new jobs we create in this innovative sector. Most of the really big decisions seem to have been deferred to the already much-delayed waste and resources strategy.

There are three players when it comes to trying to achieve such systemic change: consumers and the choices they make, which is important; the market and its response to consumer demand or to business opportunities, and we are seeing that happen to an extent; and the state, with its ability to regulate, ban, use fiscal incentives or disincentives, set targets and drive forward change. The Government have something of an ideologically driven weakness for the hands-off, voluntary approach—maybe a bit of education, a bit of a nudge, but basically preferring to leave it to consumers and the market, except for the low-hanging fruit I mentioned.

This issue is simply too important and too urgent for such an approach. We are destroying our precious planet, and the Government need to show significantly more leadership than they have shown so far. For example, their response to our report on coffee cups is quite discouraging. They rejected our recommendation of a 25p latte levy, which we have already heard about, and most of the rest was kicked into the long grass where the waste strategy currently resides. I am glad that the parliamentary authorities have this week shown more ambition with their plastic-free Parliament package, which includes a latte levy. I particularly thank Surfers Against Sewage for its work on plastics; it has been brilliant.

In their response to the EAC report, the Government praised the paper cup alliance, which is really a rather weak collaboration of big coffee chains and manufacturers. Like the right hon. Member for Putney, I have written to the coffee chains. I will not name and shame here, but it was interesting to see which companies responded in a reasonably positive way and which were very dismissive. The paper cup alliance has not even set a target for increasing the proportion of coffee cups that are recycled, and its primary intention seems to be to rebrand “coffee cups” as “paper cups” and to get better recognition of them as recyclable, but we have already heard that, although notionally they are recyclable, only five facilities in the whole UK can separate the thin plastic membrane from the paper outer. There is no point going around telling people that coffee cups can be recycled when, in practice, they cannot. As we have heard, all but 0.25% of coffee cups go to landfill or are incinerated.

There clearly need to be measures to develop alternatives to the current cups, such as Frugalpac—there are a number of alternatives on the market. This shows the limits of voluntary action. The RSPB’s excellent 2015 report, “Using regulation as a last resort?” analysed more than 150 voluntary schemes across a range of sectors and found that common to the majority of them were unambitious targets, a lack of transparency, no enforcement mechanism, and an inability to attract widespread industry participation and compliance. That is what happens when we leave it to the market.

Only recently, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, which the Government have charged with delivering on this agenda, has had to make a tenth of its staff redundant because of funding cuts. We need a level playing field, and we need the Government to regulate and pass laws so there is one. Without that, the best practice businesses, such as Boston Tea Party, a small chain of cafés that sells takeaway coffees in Bristol and has announced that it is banning all single-use coffee cups later this year, will lose out commercially to the environmental laggards.

I wish to highlight several key recommendations from the Environmental Audit Committee that we would like to see in the waste strategy later this year. The first is a post-2020 target recycling rate of 65%. Even the UK’s own estimates have found that that would save almost £10 billion over a decade in waste sector, greenhouse gas and social costs. Last year, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), why the UK’s recycling rate had stagnated and whether the Government were opposing an EU target to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035. She would not confirm or deny that, and she blamed everyone but the Government for the UK’s poor performance, particularly local authorities, which we know simply do not have the resources to do this, and consumers.

Secondly, we need manufacturers to pay significantly more towards the recycling of the packaging used for their products. We urgently need a new framework for producer responsibility, which we have heard about. The prevalence of items such as black plastic, Lucozade bottles with plastic sleeves, coffee cups that cannot easily be recycled and Pringles tubes—they are the worst offenders as they are made of five different materials, each of which is notionally recyclable, but as one cannot be detached from the other, this is pointless—all point to the weakness of the current system. The Government used to boast that the UK’s system of producer responsibility was run at the lowest cost to business in the EU, but that comes at a cost to society, as cash-starved local authorities and taxpayers are paying 90% of the cost of collection. That is a complete reversal of the “polluter pays” principle.

Thirdly, I wish to highlight the Committee’s recommendation that the Government phase in a mandated minimum 50% rPET—recycled polyethylene terephthalate —content for the production of new plastic bottles by 2023. That would create a UK market for recycled plastic, which at the moment is struggling against low oil prices, as that makes new plastic cheaper.

In conclusion, I hope that we see from the Government a radical waste strategy that addresses the stagnating rates of recycling; the inefficiencies arising from having so many different recycling collection systems in operation; and the poor state of our recycling infrastructure, which has been deprived of investment because of the illogical PRN system. We could be world leaders in waste management and resource efficiency. Now is the time for the Government to seize the moment and act.

Draft Mandatory Use Of Closed Circuit Television In Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 General Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. Obviously, I welcome the measure. I have pushed for it for a long time. The fact that the Government have legislated demonstrates their recognition that, as in so many instances, the voluntary approach does not always work to the extent that we would like. As I understand it, all the major supermarkets source meat from slaughterhouses with CCTV, but that is only one end of the market. Supermarkets are concerned about their public reputation and are susceptible to public opinion. There are others, however, that are not so bothered, that go to the smaller slaughterhouses and whose selling practices are far less scrutinised. They do not care about CCTV installation and we are not likely to be able to persuade them to take the voluntary approach. It is only those that are at the top end of the chain that will choose to do that, so it is important that we are resorting to making it mandatory.

Some 900 million farm animals are killed for food each year in this country. People who are aware of my beliefs will know that I do not accept that there is such a thing as humane slaughter, but that does not mean that I do not think that we should not argue for conditions to be as humane as possible, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Animal welfare standards need to be improved, and the food safety element of that is incredibly important. CCTV will go some way towards ensuring that standards are much higher, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, unless there is enforcement and scrutiny, with someone watching the CCTV and coming in to check it, it will be meaningless.

There have been several undercover investigations and exposés. Animal Aid and Animal Equality have been mentioned, and I have seen some horrible virtual reality footage of what has happened to pigs in slaughterhouses. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has also done some very good work. In August 2016, through freedom of information requests, it found that there had been more than 4,000 severe breaches of animal welfare regulations in the previous two years in British slaughterhouses. In fact, there had been 9,500 animal welfare breaches, of which nearly half were category 4, which is the most serious. A single breach can include hundreds of animals, so we are not just talking about 4,500 animals that were treated appallingly; we could be talking about many more. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism highlighted instances of cruelty and neglect, and equipment failure, which can all lead to animals being slaughtered in a horrendous way.

I recently asked a series of parliamentary questions about enforcing current standards and following-up where breaches have been identified. The information I got back was shocking. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated in its answers that out of the 467 slaughterhouses that the FSA has audited since 2010, 65 received one unsatisfactory audit result and another 70 received multiple, successive unsatisfactory audit results. That means that nearly a third of slaughterhouses have failed their audit in some way in the past seven years, but in that time, only four slaughterhouses have had their approval withdrawn: S Bagshaw and Sons and Simply Halal for “welfare abuses”, and the Cleveland Meat Company and Summers Poultry Products for “serious deficiencies in operational hygiene procedure”. That is two approvals withdrawn for animal welfare and two for food safety.

It seems as though no action is being taken against the dozens of slaughterhouses that have received unsatisfactory audit results. They have not had their approval withdrawn, but have been allowed to carry on with business as usual. They need to be forced to make improvements, but the fact that they seem to be able to fail the audit process multiple times without action being taken suggests that failing once would not be a deterrent to them. There seems to be no suggestion that their approval would be suspended until improvements are made.

The FSA says that it will prevent a slaughterhouse from continuing to operate only if there is an imminent risk to public health or if there are serious breaches in animal welfare. Those are obviously low bars to have set, which means that an awful lot of breaches will be allowed to pass without any action being taken. Numerous potential violations would be of concern to the public if they knew about them, whether or not they cared about animal welfare. Most people would also be concerned if food hygiene was not up to scratch, and we have seen many reports about such failings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said. The 2 Sisters investigation is not just about conditions in slaughterhouses or animal welfare; it is about the way the carcases are treated as they are processed for sale.

DEFRA admitted to me that the receipt of an unsatisfactory audit result determines only the frequency of future audits and unannounced inspections. In other words, if a slaughterhouse fails an audit once, they are more likely to get checked again. As I have said, however, that does not lead to any action being taken. Certainly for weeks, but potentially for months, the slaughterhouse would be allowed to continue operating and putting out meat that has been produced in deficient circumstances.

Installing CCTV in all slaughterhouses will go some way to preventing lapses in hygiene standards and animal welfare abuses, but it partly depends on where the cameras are positioned and, above all, whether there is important action at the end of it. There is still a hands-off, light-touch approach to audits and inspections at the moment, which the Government have constructed. We need to rethink how we monitor food safety and animal welfare standards before another scandal occurs.

I just want to mention one more thing in passing—as we always expect, Brexit rears its ugly head. I am concerned by reports that I have read—last month in The Guardian, for example—about the growth in the number of high-speed slaughterhouses in the US, where 21 pigs a minute are slaughtered. Sixty Members of Congress wrote a letter saying that

“rapid line speeds present some of the greatest risks of inhumane treatment as workers are often pressured to take violent shortcuts to keep up.”

The undercover investigation of the slaughterhouse where so many pigs were being killed said not only that pigs were covered in abscesses and faeces and other fairly disgusting things, but also that there were workers beating, dragging and prodding the pigs towards slaughter, because they had to keep up with that incredibly fast pace. As I have said, I do not particularly subscribe to the idea of humane slaughter, but certainly that is inhumane slaughter, taken to the nth degree. I should hope that with Brexit, as we open our doors to US trade deals, we will stand firm against that.

Finally—the Minister will know that this is something we have discussed in the past—I think 95% of vets in our abattoirs are EU nationals. There is an issue about what happens if we cannot get the vets to operate in abattoirs and inspect them because they are not allowed into the country. I think at the moment most of them will be allowed to stay and get their five years and residency, but what if we do not attract those vets post-Brexit? I think there is a vet training school in Spain that specifically trains vets to work in abattoirs. Vets in this country do not particularly want to work in them, and we can understand why, as their job is about saving animals’ lives. This is an important issue, which goes to the heart of our debate. There is no point in having cameras recording what goes on if we cannot get our house in order in the first place, and then follow up and make sure that the rules are followed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 gives courts the power to impose a disqualification order on anyone found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to animals. That can disqualify someone not only from owning or keeping animals but, crucially, from having any influence over the way in which an animal is kept. If someone is suspected of breaching the terms of a disqualification order, the matter should be reported to the relevant authorities. My hon. Friend will understand that there is a difference if someone has been charged but not yet prosecuted, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of long-standing public health concerns about the routine overuse of antibiotics on UK farms, yet we now hear that such use is five times higher on American farms, particularly for US beef production. What conversations is he having with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that opening the markets to US beef does not happen, and that we do not have a public health crisis in this country?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. We have made good progress in the UK on reducing our use of antibiotics in agriculture. There have been notable successes in the poultry industry, and the pig sector is also making improvements. In our future agricultural policy, we want to support approaches to livestock husbandry that will enable us to reduce the use of antibiotics further and, as I said earlier, we will not compromise our food and animal welfare standards in pursuit of any trade deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

Officials have been in regular touch with the water companies, and on Tuesday, I convened a meeting of water company chief executives, Ofwat and Water UK. As I announced to the House, I have asked Ofwat to undertake a review to look into the practices that happened.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T4. The Command Paper includes the line:“We will adopt a trade approach which promotes… lower prices for consumers”,which I find rather worrying. Is it not the case that food prices are already historically low? Lower prices will not do anything for British farmers. We need good-quality, affordable and healthy food, not a race to the bottom to get ever cheaper food.

[George Eustice]

The point that we are making is that in the long term, there may be opportunities in certain sectors, particularly for food that we are unable to produce in this country, to have lower prices for certain products. However, the hon. Lady makes an important point. Generally, we have low and stable food prices in this country, and countries that are fully dependent on importing all their food tend to have higher prices and less choice.

Draft Waste Enforcement (England and Wales) Regulations 2018

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 General Committees

[Dr Drew]

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

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

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

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

[Dr Drew]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I, too, welcome the Government’s taking action on this matter, but I question why it has taken so long to introduce the proposals. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs conducted a public consultation in 2015 on proposals to tighten regulators’ powers at waste sites, and the vast majority of the respondents agreed with the proposals. One would have thought that that meant that we could move ahead speedily. For some reason—I am not sure why—the Department conducted a restricted stakeholder consultation on this statutory instrument in April 2017, and the results were not published. I understand that of the 113 organisations that responded to the original consultation, only eight replied to the 2017 consultation. Perhaps they felt that they had already had their say and did not need to make a further contribution—or the issue may have been that it was a restricted, four-week consultation over Easter, and they did not have time to reply before the deadline. In the interests of ensuring that we can introduce similar legislation more speedily and efficiently in future, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why this measure has taken so long to come to the table.

On the broader issue, fly-tipping and waste crime are a growing problem, as the Minister will know from discussions that she has had when appearing before the Environmental Audit Committee, particularly when we were looking at the problem of China enforcing a ban on the substantial amounts of plastic and paper waste that we were previously exporting to them. We were exporting the problem, some people might say, but the simple fact is that we are not equipped in this country; we do not have the infrastructure to recycle our own waste and use it sustainably, whether that be through reuse programmes or anaerobic digestion, ideally, or through, as a last resort, sending it to landfill. We should not be doing that. I think that the Minister now accepts that we need considerably more investment in infrastructure if we are to adhere to the waste hierarchy and deal with our waste sustainably.

Any MP, whether they have a rural or an urban constituency, will be aware of the blight of fly-tipping. In my constituency, under the M32 flyover, we have a significant problem with vans coming off the motorway and dumping refuse, usually from household clearance. One problem is that Bristol, quite rightly, reserves its household recycling centres for the use of Bristol residents, so people have to prove that they are a local council tax payer to use them. People in South Gloucestershire who want to use those sites are basically not allowed to do so, but unscrupulous firms will collect people’s waste under the pretence that they will dispose of it responsibly, and will just come off the motorway and dump it in the street. Although the waste has not been generated by Bristol households, it is the responsibility of Bristol City Council to clean it up. We have persistent complaints from councillors about that. It is a huge cost to the local council. People might say that we could make the recycling centres open to everyone, but why should we pay to dispose of things that South Gloucestershire residents want to get rid of?

Companies are meant to have waste licences to collect waste. There is a real problem with lack of enforcement in respect of those licences. Many companies are not licensed to do the job, but the average householder will not know whether a company is licensed, and will not even think to check whether someone has a licence. The Minister needs to address that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West spoke about the fly infestation in Avonmouth. He was not in Parliament in the time, and it is not my constituency, but that certainly caused a lot of concern locally. I think it started with a bale of biofuel, and it spread all across the local area, including to food waste bins. Eventually, the Environment Agency stripped the company in question of permission to operate on the docks. However, that took a long time to highlight. Viridor said at the time that it was

“yet another example of poor practice in RDF export.”

I have already mentioned China’s ban on our sending much of our waste there. I hope that the Minister will look at whether there is a risk that the plastic waste previously sent to China will be diverted to refuse-derived fuel in this country instead. I hope she will assure us that that will not be the case.

Finally, it is one thing to bring in measures—I welcome them—to deal with waste and fly-tipping, but the starting point should be preventing the waste. We heard lots of noise from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about bringing forward a deposit return scheme, for example. In the Budget last year, it hit the front pages that we were consulting on a tax on single-use plastics. So far as I know, the call for evidence on that has still not even been issued, so a consultation that was on the front pages in November has not yet started. What is the delay?

Why can we not get on with being serious about the circular economy in this country, reducing waste and enforcing the waste hierarchy? Perhaps then we would not have so much waste to clear up.

Leaving the EU: Live Farm Animal Exports

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we should certainly consider that. If, for any reason, our opportunity to make those changes is delayed longer than we would like, some intervention along the way might be appropriate.

Many people agree with the reasonable proposition that animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are raised, and that the carcases should then be exported. We should seek to apply that; it is not only far more efficient, but clearly better for the animals. If we were to do that, there would also be an opportunity to up-sell and to create more jobs in the UK, rather than exporting the value-added part of the process with the live animals. A ban may have an impact on some trade, and we need to accept that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

If the hon. Gentleman accepts, as I think he does, that transporting live animals for long periods in poor conditions is wrong and not good from the point of view of animal welfare standards, what difference does it make whether they are slaughtered at the end, or going for fattening? Surely it is the transit that we ought to look at, regardless of what happens to the animals in the end.

[Steve Double]

From researching the issue and speaking to many people in the industry about it, I think the reality is that when animals are exported for breeding stock or for fattening, they are usually far more cared for, and are transported in far better conditions, because there is a higher value on them, than if they are being exported to be slaughtered. The market, for want of a better word, takes care of that issue. The problem is acute when animals are exported long distances to be slaughtered, because they tend to suffer the worst conditions. I do not think that applies when a higher value is put on the animal being exported.

As I was saying, a ban may have an impact on trade. For instance, our trade in sheep, as opposed to lamb, relies on exports because there is a very limited market for mutton in the UK; some may think that we should look into changing that, but that is the situation. Mutton sheep fetch £70 to £80 a head when sold in the UK, but up to £200 a head when exported live to parts of the EU with higher demand. Even in that example, however, we need to consider whether that additional profit is right, or whether we should do the right thing for the animal, despite the impact on the market. We need to do everything we can to stop the unnecessary suffering of exported animals .

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Wilson. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing today’s debate. As has been said, the petition did not quite reach 100,000 signatures—I think there are about 93,000 at the moment, which is a really good effort—but I am very glad that we decided to have the debate anyway. Like the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), I pay tribute to Janet Darlison, the creator of the petition, for all her work in promoting it and for creating the momentum that has brought us here today.

When the Minister comes to speak, I hope that we will have a little more clarity on what exactly the Government’s position is, because at the moment that is lacking. I am certainly none the wiser having heard the introductory speech, but it is up to the Minister to say where he wants to take us. In 2012 I spoke about a ban on live exports, and just last year I supported the ten-minute rule Bill in favour of such a ban, so I am glad that we now seem to be a little closer to a ban becoming a reality. However, I feel that there has been some rowing back on some of the pronouncements that were made during the European Union referendum campaign.

For example, the current Foreign Secretary went down to Ramsgate and I thought that he announced in no uncertain terms that there would be a ban on live exports if we left the EU. I know from the emails I have received that there are people who were persuaded to vote leave simply because of that issue. Perhaps those are the sorts of emails I tend to get from people involved in the animal welfare movement. I tried my best to outline some of the reasons why I thought animal welfare might not benefit from Brexit, particularly if we consider the animal welfare and food safety standards that we might be forced to relinquish as part of a trade deal with the United States. However, many people were adamant and were convinced that a live export ban would be delivered almost overnight if we voted to leave.

It is now being said that such a ban is being considered as one of several options as we leave the EU. As the Minister is here today, I will point out that I asked a similar question about foie gras. At the moment, the production of foie gras is banned in this country, on the grounds that we believe it to be cruel, unnatural and something that we should not tolerate here. The line has always been that imports of foie gras cannot be prohibited, because the dastardly EU would not let us ban them. So one might think that, given we have already established our own moral position on this issue here in the UK, once we are free from the clutches of the EU a ban on imports would be the next step. However, the answer I have just received to my written parliamentary question is:

“Leaving the EU and the single market therefore provides an opportunity to consider whether the UK can adopt a different approach in future”.

To me, that sounds like equivocation taken to the nth degree, and I fear that the same might apply to live exports.

It is also somewhat disingenuous to suggest that such a ban on live exports was always on the Government’s wish list and that it just was not possible to achieve until we left the EU. Ministers who argued during the EU referendum campaign that we would get a live exports ban once we left the EU are members of a party and a Government who in 2012 were instrumental in stopping action at EU level—I think it was being led by Germany—that would have limited the journey time for live animals to below eight hours. In most cases that would have been tantamount to a ban on live exports from the UK. However, the UK went along to those discussions and argued against attempts to limit the hours.

I have raised this issue in a number of debates, including the recent debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as it seems to me to be representative of the verbal and policy gymnastics that the Government have undertaken since the EU referendum, and nobody has come back to me and said that the UK did not take that stance. So let nobody be under the false illusion that we could not have taken significant action to limit —perhaps not ban, but limit—live transit times.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I believe that in 1992 it was a Conservative Government who sought to impose import restrictions, but they were challenged and overturned in the European Court of Justice, so this is something that a Conservative Government have tried to tackle in the past.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am talking about 2012, which is far more recent than that, and as I said the Government went along to the negotiations and were not prepared to take the side of those who were arguing for an eight- hour limit.

It is important that the Government are held to account on what I see as a promise to end the practice of live animal exports that was made during the referendum campaign. That is because—as the petition rightly states, although I do not think we have heard quite enough about it this afternoon—the transport of live animals, no matter what the end result is, whether they are going for slaughter or for fattening up overseas, causes a huge amount of unnecessary suffering.

It is important not to forget the tragedy that jump-started the long-running campaign for a ban, which happened many years ago. In 1996 nearly 70,000 sheep were left to die either from heatstroke, suffocation, burning or drowning, after the ship that was carrying them caught fire in the middle of the Indian ocean. Although, thankfully, an incident on that scale has not happened again, countless animals continue to endure gruelling journeys every year.

In 2012, 40 sheep had to be euthanised after being crammed into a truck, and just last August it was reported that 500 sheep spent four days without any access to food or water while they were being transported to Turkey. Also, many people here will have seen today’s story in The Times about how every year more than 5,000 calves—unweaned and discarded by the dairy industry—are sent on journeys of more than 135 hours from Scotland to Spain. That number had doubled from the previous year; I think the 5,000 figure is from 2016.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech and I just want to add one more point. I believe that in the past two years 20,000 calves have been sent to Spain. In Spain there is a requirement that a calf should be given bedding for only the first two weeks of its life and not beyond that, whereas a British calf has the right—if I can put it that way—to have bedding for six months. So the standards in Spain are dramatically lower than those in the UK, which is another reason why this issue is about not only whether an animal is going to be slaughtered, but the conditions in which it is living when it reaches its destination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

As is often the case—perhaps not on the wider Brexit issue, but on this specific issue— I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. Actually, that was a point I was going to make later in my speech: there is a big discrepancy between two weeks’ worth of bedding and six months’ worth of bedding. It is certainly something that we have to take into account.

As I was saying, I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity as to whether Scotland would be exempt from any ban on live exports that was introduced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I understand that that is the case. Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, said this month that Scotland would not participate in such a ban, so I would also be interested to hear from the Scottish National party spokesperson whether the SNP will allow the export of veal calves to continue.

Although the number of live animals exported each year has fallen from millions to tens of thousands, tens of thousands of animals are potentially still enduring cruel, long and painful journeys. Even during routine trips, animals are often exposed to freezing or extremely hot temperatures, with a lack of adequate sustenance, dangerous overcrowding and injuries being common.

One particularly harrowing investigation found that thousands of cattle were being transported via ship, and the unweaned calves were simply being tossed overboard if they became too sickly or died. As was mentioned in The Times story about the veal calves today, with their 135-hour journeys, although there are rules about rest periods, for example on long journeys, that can simply mean that the trucks stop in laybys and the animals continue to be held in very hot and crowded conditions for another hour or so, which for them is really no rest period at all.

The Government continue to proclaim their global leadership in animal welfare and even talk about legislating for higher standards but, as has been touched on, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce standards effectively when it comes to the current live transit. Even the EU, in its 2011 review, admitted that effective enforcement is near impossible. Whenever animals continue to be exported live, there will continue to be suffering and violations of welfare. Unfortunately, the EU review did not come up with any changes to the standards. It seemed almost to accept that cutting corners to save space and money will always be attractive for companies that transport live animals, which will always be to the detriment of the animals involved.

It has been mentioned, not least by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), that when animals are transported beyond the UK they move beyond the Government’s reach, into countries with much lower standards than ours, and not just far-flung countries but our closest neighbours, including Spain and France, as we have heard. Many UK sheep are sent to France, and a 2016 French National Assembly report concluded that there were serious and widespread welfare problems in French abattoirs. Members might have seen from recent parliamentary questions that I and others have tabled, or from The Guardian’s excellent “Animals farmed” series, that conditions in our own slaughterhouses and food production lines are not always as we might desire, but there is certainly widespread concern about overseas conditions also—we have already mentioned the situation in Spain. The problems are exacerbated by many animals being re-exported even further away, meaning that their re-packing is covered only by the standards of the country acting as the middleman, not by ours. It goes without saying that we cannot assume that after the animals have endured the awful journeys they will be killed quickly or humanely.

If the Government are serious about being known as a world leader in animal welfare, they must put their money where their mouth is and announce their clear commitment to banning the export of live animals, for slaughter or for further fattening. The Labour party has called for that in its recently published animal welfare plan, and for the Government to ensure an exemption for livestock crossing the border on the island of Ireland, with which I think everyone would agree.

[Colin Clark]

I have spoken about livestock moving the significant distances between the islands, from Orkney and Shetland and the islands on the west coast of Scotland. Does the hon. Lady accept that that transport reaches a standard with which she would be comfortable?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I cannot comment on the standard, as I have never looked into it, but I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s assurances—he is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I was talking about exceptions outside the UK. We accept that live transit would continue to be allowed within the UK, but we also need to ensure that decent standards and proper monitoring are in place. The one exception would be across the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland; I do not think anyone would argue that that should be subject to an export ban.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Once we leave the EU, we will completely lose control over the welfare standards of any animals that go from the UK into southern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady accept that those animals could continue their journey on to Spain or France?

[Kerry McCarthy]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue for not having live exports across the border from the north of Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, he is welcome to do so. This goes to a much wider issue that the Government have not yet managed to address: what do we do about the border between the north and the south once we leave the EU? Many people want it to continue in its current form, but the practicalities of leaving should mean that a hard border is established. That is one for the Government and perhaps not one that we in Westminster Hall can grapple with today, but the fact that we need to address the issue of animals being transported between the north and the south ought not to be used as an excuse for not addressing an export ban outside the British Isles.

[Mr Carmichael]

The difficulty with the hon. Lady’s argument is that we either ban exports or we do not. A ban is a ban, and she is arguing for a ban that is not a ban. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) says, once animals are in southern Ireland they can be exported anywhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that we need a hard border with Ireland, which will then prevent us from implementing anything else we would desire to see in the relationship between the north and the south, he may do so, but I think we must consider that relationship a special case. We need to look at how many animals would go on in transit. The Minister perhaps can enlighten us on that, but I suspect that it is not a significant number.

I conclude by talking about something the Minister needs to advise us on, and that is World Trade Organisation agreements. Colleagues will be aware that under WTO agreements countries cannot, under normal circumstances, discriminate between trading partners. The principle is known as most favoured nation treatment, and in practice it means that the UK could not allow for the live export of animals to the Republic of Ireland while excluding the rest of the EU. Therefore, it is wholly possible that a ban on live animal exports could contravene WTO rules—a view shared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, among others. Any WTO member can challenge another member on its trade policy, which could then be ruled as breaching the organisation’s rules.

However, as a member of the EU, the UK is already party to several trade bans that have never been challenged at the WTO, including the import ban on cosmetics tested on animals and the ban on fur produced from cats and dogs. When the Government consider their future options, they can look at the 2009 EU seal import ban as an example of how to pass the WTO test. I hope that the Minister can explain how he feels we will pass that test if we introduce at least a partial ban on exports.

Finally, I understand that the Command Paper for the Agriculture Bill might be published tomorrow—the Minister might like to enlighten us on that. It presents a perfect opportunity to introduce proposals to ensure that a ban comes into force as soon as possible after the UK leaves the EU. Both before and after leaving, the Government should push the European institutions and member states to strive for greater co-operation. I do not want us just to walk away from the problem. It is one thing to say, “When we leave the EU we can make our own rules; we can have standards that are truly excellent—gold-plated.” I do not want us to walk away from the EU, full stop. I would like us to remain a member and be able to influence animal welfare standards across the continent, but even if we cannot, we still need to use what influence we have and what trade discussions we are having to try to ensure that those standards that are not what we would like to see, in France and Spain and further afield, are improved.

We have an opportunity to improve animal welfare. I said at the start of my speech that Brexit offers very few opportunities, but if we are to leave the EU I hope that the Minister seizes this one and does something to ensure the better welfare of animals for years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who I think is wrong about rural as opposed to urban communities. We have only to listen to the RSPCA to hear about unspeakable acts of vicious cruelty that take place against domestic animals in our urban areas to know that cruelty is not divided by region, people or nations, but by wickedness in individuals. It is absolutely the road to hell to ban things because we do not like the proper process that should be followed. I am particularly passionate about this because my amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would have seen the sentence for cruelty increased, but it was voted down by the Labour Government who took the credit for the Bill.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West for revealing my fondness for tropical fish, although I am not sure that they are completely relevant in this debate as they tend to be flown in from Singapore on very long journeys. However, the problem with a ban is that we are all here because we want to see less bad treatment and better treatment of animals in transit, irrespective of where they are coming from or going to and irrespective of whether they are for slaughter or for breeding stock.

I had to pass exams to be allowed to transport my animals. It is wrong to say that there are not rules on what we are allowed to do. There is an eight-hour limit. We have to have tests and we can drive our animals only within 65 km of where we live without any regulation whatsoever. So what the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said is wrong. She should look it up on the DEFRA website

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that I said there were not any rules, but I said nothing of the sort. I accepted that there are rules in place, but I said that they are not being adhered to. For example, calves being held in a truck in a lay-by technically counts as a rest period, but most of us would agree that is not much of a relief for them. I did not say that there were not any rules.

[Bill Wiggin]

I thought the hon. Lady said that we tried to object to the eight-hour limit in the European Union.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is an overall limit.

[Bill Wiggin]

I have given the matter a great deal of thought and it occurs to me that we should not ban live exports. If we do that, we will lose control through the Irish border and the animals whose welfare we seek to improve could end up travelling from southern Ireland to Spain or France on journeys that are considerably longer than they need to be. We need to improve the standards of transport within the United Kingdom, and when they arrive in Kent ready to cross the channel they must be properly inspected by vets. That means there needs to be lairage and unloading of the animals, and they need to be checked. Then they should be loaded into approved-only transporters. There are penalties for any suffering that happens on the journeys, but at the moment there is not an owner.

The lorry driver is not the owner of the animals in the back, so if a sheep’s leg is sticking out of the back of the truck, nobody suffers financially for that. If one of the animals is found to be suffering when they are unloaded, it gets put down and then there is a penalty, because that life is lost and that animal is no longer fit for human consumption. The whole purpose of its export has been taken away. That is the penalty that hangs over all livestock producers all the time. If someone is found to have put the wrong medicines in their animal, it is condemned. That is how we deal with and enforce rules.

If we have proper policing all the way along the transport route, it is perfectly reasonable to continue to send animals 22 miles over the seas as opposed to thousands of miles around the edge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I would hazard a guess that, unusually, this afternoon’s petition is probably supported by the vast majority of UK citizens. I noted that one of the areas with the greatest density of replies, as we can see from the information published by the House, was South Thanet, and for good reason. Part of South Thanet has been mentioned in the debate: the very small commercial port of Ramsgate, which is part of my constituency. It has the very dubious honour, which I want to get rid of as soon as possible, of being the only UK port through which lamb and sheep are transported across an international sea border for slaughter abroad.

If the inappropriate means of transport across the channel—up to three hours on a small, ageing Russian tank transporter called the Joline, which plied the Volga river in a previous incarnation and is now Latvian-flagged—is not bad enough, we should also be concerned about the long journey times within the UK. The sheep and lambs are often from Cumbria, meaning an eight to 10 hour trip to Kent. The onward journey, after three hours travelling across the channel, could be to somewhere as far as Germany, which would take another eight hours or more, after which they are slaughtered. We are talking about a transport time—without mentioning the problems that we have already heard about regarding veal—for lambs of 24 hours in total. Although exports through Ramsgate can be at any time of year—in winter cold or summer heat—peaks are often seen to coincide with religious festivals, notably Eid, following the end of Ramadan.

The issue of animal exports out of Ramsgate gained national focus because of a truly appalling fiasco on 12 September 2012, as has been mentioned this afternoon. A single lorry carrying more than 500 sheep was declared unfit to travel. Temporary holding pens were set up, as no official lairage was available at the port. Some 43 sheep had to be euthanised due to injury, six fell into the water, and two drowned. Breaches of animal welfare regulations were found, and appropriate fines and a suspended prison sentence were levied against the director of the transport company. Thereafter, Thanet District Council unilaterally suspended the trade through the municipally owned and run port. However, following an injunction by the shippers, the trade was forced to resume again the next month, in late October 2012.

A petition was presented to Parliament in January 2013 by the then MP Laura Sandys, calling for the permanent suspension of live exports through the port. Things then became truly weird, with protracted legal action by the shippers—action that concluded in February 2014, resulting in a claim of more than £4 million in compensation against the local council. It is a small council, so local taxpayers had to bear that cost. Live animal exports could not be prevented in what was a very telling judgment for two reasons. First, section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 allows, in simple terms, free access to goods traffic from any UK port—an historical law that was more appropriate, I would argue, in the age of sail and steam, when navigation was more hazardous. For that reason, I sought to introduce a fairly simple amendment to the old Act via a ten-minute rule Bill in May 2016. My Bill would have allowed municipally owned and controlled ports the discretion to ban the trade. In Ramsgate, it is certainly not a trade that people want through the port, which they own.

In some ways, that Bill was a little bit of devilment, because even if it had passed at that time, it would have been deemed not in accordance with single market rules on the functioning of the EU. That was clearly highlighted in the second part of the High Court judgment, which stated that in any event, notwithstanding the 1847 Act, EU law governing the function of the single market would prevent restrictions of animal exports. I note what the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, but the EU interprets animals as mere “goods”. EU rules still allow the production of foie gras, the existence of veal crates, bullfighting and everything else. I do not think that EU standards are the gold plate that many people see them as.

It was encouraging to see, a couple of weeks ago—and somewhat late in the day, I might add—the Labour party publish its proposals for animal welfare. I warmly welcomed them, but they largely mirrored what we on the Conservative Benches are doing and have been talking about for some time. The Leader of the Opposition spoke today about maintaining membership of “a” or “the” customs union, and maintaining rules and standards very much in alignment with those of the EU, so that we end up in some perpetual membership of the single market. I am afraid that that was where the credibility of Labour’s position on animal welfare somewhat fell to bits in my mind. An independent country would be able to introduce the welfare standards it feels are right, but single market rules have thus far failed us on animal and farming standards.

Just a month ago, I held an event on the parliamentary estate—just next door—with representatives of key animal welfare groups, many of whom are here, and a diverse range of celebrities, including Joanna Lumley, Frederick Forsyth, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Selina Scott and Jan Leeming. I was pleased to be supported by Conservative colleagues, but there was also support from Members of the Scottish National party—I was grateful that they were at the event. Sadly, not one Labour Member came, and I am somewhat intrigued about that. I am also somewhat intrigued about the fact that the Labour Benches are virtually devoid this afternoon.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Craig Mackinlay]

Of course—I am surprised that the hon. Lady has waited so long.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I did get an invite to that event— I think I was actually speaking at something else that afternoon—but I thought I had been sent it accidentally, because I thought it was Conservative animal welfare event, especially given some of the names that were mentioned. I did not go because I thought I had somehow accidentally got on to the hon. Gentleman’s mailing list, but he should not assume from that any lack of support for the cause.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I am sorry if there was anything in the invitation that put the hon. Lady off, but it was very much open to all, and some other parties took up the offer.

We live in changed times. We voted to leave the European Union, which means leaving the customs union and the single market and no longer being bound by the EU’s acquis in areas where we wish to diverge. That gives me great hope. We have the opportunity to advance new international trade deals, and for the first time in a generation we are free once more to do what is right and what the people of this country demand. That very much comes under the banner of taking back control, which means taking back control of animal welfare and farming standards.

I and other Members have mentioned the encouraging words in the Conservative party manifesto by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other agriculture Ministers. I fully supported the Live Animal Exports (Prohibitions) Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and I pay tribute to the 94,000 people across the country who signed this petition. I feel that they will share my view that, post Brexit, we can have a renaissance of animal welfare standards, alongside our commitments to introduce CCTV in abattoirs and increase sentences for those who abuse animals.

I fully appreciate farmers’ concerns about the potential for increased costs, which were ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). He must feel like he is in “12 Angry Men”—one of my favourite films—but I am not sure he is going to win today. The increased costs resulting from the application of the standards that my hon. Friend ably set out may stop this trade in its tracks. The profit from the difference between the farm-gate cost and the price that the farmer receives when the animals are delivered to the market abroad will no longer be realised.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on opening the debate, and thank him for giving us such a comprehensive introduction to an issue that is important to the public. As he says, more than 93,000 people have signed the petition. I too congratulate Janet Darlison and others, who put the petition together and secured the debate.

It is unsurprising that a petition calling for legislation to ban the export of live farm animals in favour of a carcase-only trade has received nearly 93,000 signatures. This issue has been the subject of a long-standing campaign by animal welfare organisations, but as most people who have followed the issue know, and as my hon. Friend acknowledged, European Union free trade rules have prevented the Government from taking meaningful action on this over the past 30 years. However, once we leave the European Union, we will be able to take action on what for many people is an iconic animal welfare issue.

While EU trade rules might have prevented Governments from banning the live export trade, we have still seen a dramatic change in the numbers of live animals exported, particularly those destined for slaughter. Some 25 years ago, around 2 million animals were exported each and every year. The peak of live exports going from the UK for slaughter was in 1992, when a total of around 400,000 cattle, 300,000 pigs and nearly 1.5 million sheep were exported from the UK directly for slaughter.

As a result of the high number of animals being exported, live export became extremely controversial, with widespread demonstrations against it at the main ports during the 1990s. Port authorities and shipping companies were put under considerable pressure to end the trade, which led to nearly all the main ferry operators refusing to take animals destined for slaughter.

In 2017, about 21,000 farm animals were exported for fattening and production, and a further 5,000 were transported directly for slaughter from Great Britain. That was a decrease on the 2016 export figures, when about 50,000 farm animals were exported for fattening and production, and around 5,200 were transported directly for slaughter from Great Britain. To put that in the context of our national production, approximately 14 million sheep were slaughtered in the UK in the same period. The reality is that the live export for slaughter of sheep, in particular, is today a very small part of the overall UK sheep trade.

Some of those exported animals will have been transported on the MV Joline, which has sailed between Ramsgate and Calais since 2010, carrying vehicles that mostly transport sheep to Europe for slaughter or further fattening. Those sheep, after travelling to Ramsgate, spend up to six hours at sea on the MV Joline. That is followed by a further journey, often of around eight hours, before reaching their destination in France, the Netherlands, Belgium or Germany. Many people find putting animals through such long journeys, only for them to be slaughtered at the destination, indefensible.

The Government would prefer to see animals slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production, as a trade in meat on the hook is preferable to a trade based on the transport of live animals, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) pointed out. The Government are committed to improving the welfare of all animals, and share both British farmers’ and the British public’s high regard for animal welfare. We are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and have continued to lead the way in raising the bar on welfare standards. For example, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, we recently introduced legislation to make CCTV mandatory in all slaughterhouses.

As we move forwards to a new relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, we have a unique opportunity to shape future animal welfare policy and ensure the highest standards in every area, including the welfare of animals in transport. To that end, we committed in our manifesto to taking early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter as we leave the EU. We are considering all the options on how best to achieve that commitment, and today’s debate has been helpful in demonstrating the various issues that any new policy will need to take into account.

Over the years, various scientific and veterinary reports have been written on the needs of animals during transport. A 2011 report by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, made certain recommendations to improve the welfare of animals in transport—recommendations that have not been adopted by the European Union. It is clear from reading the EFSA opinion that the requirements of different species before and during transport are significantly different. For example, studies confirm that heat stress can present a major threat to cattle welfare, while scientific evidence shows that if adult cattle are transported on journeys longer than 29 hours, fatigue and aggressiveness increase, and that cattle should be offered water during rest periods during journeys. There has also been some evidence that sheep and goats can suffer seasickness.

That 2011 report made a number of recommendations, including that the maximum journey time for horses be 12 hours, that journey times for calves be reduced and that pigs be transported in familiar groups, since they are social animals. In 2016, the UK supported Sweden in calling on the European Commission to look again at the regulations governing welfare in transport. It is disappointing that no progress has been made on this in Europe beyond the publication of good practice guides.

We are aware that there is also a significant amount of evidence and scientific research into the welfare of animals during transport, some of which was published after the current legislation came into force. We have therefore commissioned the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh to carry out a research project to look at the existing evidence base, and to highlight the key research that we need to be aware of, to ensure that any future measures we consider are based on the most up-to-date evidence.

I turn to the contributions from other hon. Members. I am very much aware that there were a number of contributions by hon. Members who have been long-standing campaigners on this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who recently presented a ten-minute rule Bill on the issue, and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale).

I will address an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). We recognise that particular island communities may have special circumstances that we must take into account; at the other end of the country, where I come from, a similar issue pertains to the Isles of Scilly. I had the honour of visiting the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency some years ago; in fact, I visited what I think is Shetland’s one and only abattoir. It prided itself on its attention to detail when it came to animal welfare. I think I am right in saying that there is no similar facility on Orkney, and that most of the animals there are transported. That is something that we are aware of and must obviously take account of.

I completely accept that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is sincere on this issue; she has a long-standing track record of campaigning on many issues. However, she sought to suggest that there might be a lack of commitment from the Government, or that we were backsliding. Let me be very clear: people like me who campaigned to leave the EU explained that EU law prevented us from taking action in this area. That is true. I went down to Ramsgate and met people and explained that EU law is the obstacle. After the referendum result, the Conservative party put in its manifesto a commitment to control the export of animals for slaughter when the UK leaves the European Union. As I have just pointed out, we are now giving consideration to how we will take that forward. We have been consistent throughout.

The hon. Lady should look at her party’s position on this. A few weeks ago, the Opposition introduced—with great fanfare—a package of measures on animal welfare, but just a week later adopted a position on the European single market and European customs union that would basically make many of the things they set out in that welfare manifesto unlawful under EU law.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am grateful that the Minister has allowed me to intervene, because that point was also made earlier. I think he is referring to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech today. It set out our position on remaining in the customs union. It does not say the same thing about the single market. Hon. Members who spoke earlier rather conflated the two. They are very different positions.

[George Eustice]

We hear of all sorts of different positions on this issue from the Opposition at the moment. I simply say that EU free movement rules, which enshrine an open ports policy, govern this. Whether it is because of the customs union or single market legislation, the hon. Lady will find that taking action in this area will not be possible if the kind of approach that her party would like is adopted.

The hon. Lady made a legitimate point about WTO rules, but as she pointed out, there is clear WTO case law that enables Governments to ban certain trades on ethical grounds—including in a case on seal furs—as she highlighted. That issue was also looked at quite extensively in the judgment in the case of Barco de Vapor v. Thanet District Council, in relation to the contentious issue that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet pointed out. That judgment made it clear that were it not for EU regulation and EU laws in this area on trade, it would be possible for a UK Government to amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to introduce an ethical ban, should they want to. EU law is the obstacle to taking action in this space.

The hon. Member for Bristol East talked about the forthcoming Command Paper on agriculture and speculated about the timing of that. I will not get into speculation about timing, except to say that we have been working very hard on these issues. I have also been very clear—I have championed this since becoming the Minister responsible for farming—that I want there to be a strong animal welfare dimension to that agriculture paper. It will look predominantly at the type of framework that we would put in place to replace the common agricultural policy, but we have already been clear that we want to look at the idea of incentives to support high animal welfare systems of production.

The hon. Lady mentioned Scotland. We are working with the devolved Administrations to try to put forward a UK approach to this issue. As she highlighted and as we heard today, there is some scepticism from the Scottish Government and Scottish industry, which we recognise. To answer the specific question, it is possible—because this is essentially trade regulation—to put in place UK-wide regulations, but under the Sewel convention, there is an expectation that we will consult the devolved Administrations, and that is what we are doing.

I turn to some of the other contributions made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, as I said, has been a long-standing and passionate advocate on this issue. I welcome all his positive comments about the steps that we have been taking in this regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) introduced into the debate some very important notes of caution. The Government are clear about our position: we want to control the export of live animals for slaughter. It is sometimes very difficult in contentious debates such as this for people such as him to come in and take a contrarian position when there is a lot of emotion around. I understand that, but I think it very important, if we want to get the legislation right, that we take account of some of those complications.

My hon. Friend pointed out that there are already a lot of inspections of transport operators. That is true. We do not inspect at the point of entry at the port, or the point of departure at the port. Basically, we do not universally inspect; we do not inspect every consignment, and there is good reason for that. The terrible and unfortunate episode that took place in Ramsgate in 2012 showed the difficulties and dangers of trying to unload sheep in a port situation and trying to correct a position there. That is why, in the case of sheep destined for the MV Joline, we do have 100% inspections, on every consignment, at the point of loading, but not at the port; we do risk surveillance at the port. For other operators, we tend to have a risk-based approach, but there is 100% inspection, at the point of loading, for the MV Joline.

Leaving the EU: Chemicals Regulation

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mary Creagh]

I certainly do, and that was the route recommended in the report. The report was slightly curtailed—we had to rush it out in a form that was not as fine and detailed as we would have liked because of the early calling of the general election—but we were clear that that was the most pragmatic and cheapest route.

The looming deadline raises the threat of market freeze. If a small company decides not to register and just to run down its chemical feedstocks, when a big multinational manufacturer comes to apply that coating to whichever tiny aircraft engine part or car part requires it, the supplier—in some cases they are unique suppliers—might say, “We’ve run out of that stuff now.” We could see market freeze in the automotive and aerospace supply chains long before we leave the EU, because of that deadline and the lack of certainty about what will happen.

Leaving REACH puts at risk our trade in chemicals. The European Chemicals Agency has said that without an agreement to the contrary, all UK registrations will be invalid after exit day. Therefore, the jobs of my hon. Friend’s constituents and investment in their companies will all be put at risk. I will come on to talk about the threat from double regulation.

Secondly, the inquiry found that the chemicals regulation framework established by the EU through REACH would be difficult and—critically—expensive to transpose into UK law. It is not just a list of rules or restricted substances but a governance mechanism; it is an entire working body of parts. It involves data sharing and co-operation. For the UK to establish a duplicate system of chemicals regulation, as the Minister proposed when she gave evidence to us, will be expensive for us—the taxpayer—or the industry, or both.

Thirdly, after Brexit, REACH could become zombie legislation, which is no longer monitored, updated or enforced. When we debated the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I tabled new clause 61 to try to remedy that by ensuring that we remained part of REACH. However, it is part of the difficult third of EU environmental legislation that cannot be neatly cut and pasted into UK law through that Bill. The Minister in response said that the REACH regulation is directly applicable, but that is essentially meaningless without the chemicals agency to govern and regulate it. We will end up having zombie legislation, duplicating regulation and potentially diverging from the EU, which could also be a bad thing for British business.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend did an excellent job on this report and is doing an excellent job of leading the debate. Does she share my concern that when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave evidence to the Committee, it seemed to have only just started conversations with the chemicals industry about all these issues and how complicated they would be? It was almost on a learning exercise—doing its homework—long after article 50 had been triggered.

[Mary Creagh]

I did notice that. I went over the road to read the impact assessments that were not impact assessments, and it was good to read a secret document on the chemicals sector that quoted our Committee’s report heavily. There was some good analysis in there, but I was grateful to see that however thin our report was, the civil servants involved had looked at the evidence we had taken. It was certainly a very useful exercise.

The Government’s response to our report was pretty thin gruel—a couple of pages, and quite dismissive. That reflects what my hon. Friend says about the Government making it up as they go along. They are knitting their own policy as they go. There is nothing wrong with knitting, but we do not want something that ends up full of holes.

We put out the response because we wanted to see what the industry would do. It is fair to say that last year, when we were doing the report, the industry was perhaps more concerned about the impact of tariff barriers than it was about regulatory barriers. It was happy to give Government the benefit of the doubt, to believe what it was hearing and to accept reassurances, but as the exit day deadline heaves into view, that belief has been replaced by thorough scepticism and in some cases downright fear, particularly about the impact of a hard Brexit.

We put the Government’s response up on our Committee’s website and invited comments. The Chemical Business Association said,

“the Government Response to the EAC’s Report fails to…recognise the unique nature of the regulatory issues facing the chemical industry”.

Breast Cancer UK said,

“the Government’s response to EAC’s report is woefully inadequate. It fails to provide even an outline of how the Government will manage chemicals regulation post-Brexit.”

EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, said:

“The degree of uncertainty in this area is causing concern not just in the chemicals industry but also very much among downstream manufacturing industries which are reliant on a wide range of substances and chemical formulations.”

That is why 20% of the 126 companies represented by the Chemical Business Association were looking at moving to the EU. We had that evidence almost a year ago, and it would be interesting to know how many of them have established presences in Dublin, Paris or Frankfurt.

On a recent visit in my Wakefield constituency I went to a bed manufacturer, Global Components. It is in Ossett, in what used to be called the heavy woollen district—the Dewsbury part of my constituency. I was not expecting to hear about Brexit, but the company told me that 90% of its products are imports, so it has been hit by the fall in the value of the pound. It is finding it harder to recruit new staff and has delayed a major investment as a result of uncertainties over Brexit. Crucially, the foam it uses in its mattresses comes from a German supplier, and the price of that foam has risen by 30% since the referendum. Global Components is having great difficulty passing those costs on to its consumers.

The European Chemicals Agency has been very clear that without an agreement to the contrary, all UK company registrations will be invalid after exit day. No REACH means no licences. No licences means no market access. No market access means no trade. It is that simple. As one senior executive said to me, on condition that I did not say his name or his company,

“Brexit is a business-killing issue.”

If we leave the single market and the customs union, businesses will no longer have access to the database they helped to fund and build. UK science, testing, ingenuity, innovation and creativity helped to build the database. UK scientists are present in Helsinki. We helped to build the database, but now we are ripping ourselves out of it and we will no longer have the detailed safety information on all the chemicals that are handled and produced. Obviously, that is of great concern to my own trade union, the GMB, which represents workers in what can often be hazardous industries.

What choice is left to our constituents and companies? UK companies that want to continue to trade must set up what is called an only representative in the EU to re-register with REACH the registrations they used to have. That is absolutely absurd, and it is duplication. If those companies want to stay registered, they must set up somebody in a European Union member state and pay twice for something they have already bought. That is the height of absurdity. It is a huge duplication of costs, and it risks making UK chemicals and manufacturing uncompetitive. Companies could ask the importer to register themselves, but why would they do that? Why would they take on the cost and documentation? They will just switch to an alternative supplier, and that will be bad for British jobs, British growth and British businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on her brilliant job chairing this inquiry. When we first started taking evidence, I thought, “How on earth are we ever going to get our heads around such a complex subject?” I have to confess that I might have got 50% of the way there, but I am pretty sure that she got 100% of the way there and it is a credit to her. I think we saw that in her speech.

It is unusual that both environmental NGOs and the chemicals industry think that the structure of REACH is about right. It is one of the most sophisticated chemicals regulations systems in the world, and if the Government are planning to leave its protective framework—I do not think they should—they need to clarify as a matter of urgency what will replace it. Not doing so is not fair on the industry. If the Government do not get on with the job, we are going to be left in limbo.

As my hon. Friend said, when we talk about chemicals, we are talking not just about things that are obviously chemicals—the sorts of things you keep under the sink, such as bleach or cleaning sprays—but the chemicals that are present in every product and activity. Chemicals are in car engines, in the paint on cars and in our carpets; I had never thought that carpet dye was a chemical. We are exposed to countless chemicals in every facet of our lives, and they are all controlled by REACH. They are all part of the system. It should therefore be of the highest priority to ensure that chemicals continue to be properly managed after we leave the EU, not least because of the potential harm that improperly regulated chemicals can cause to the environment, and human and animal health. There is another debate to be had about chemical use in the developing world, for example, where things happen that we would not tolerate here, but that is a question for another day.

Everyone has heard of the American case made famous by the film “Erin Brockovich”, in which 370 million gallons of chromium-tainted water leaked into the local water supply and dramatically increased the levels of cancer in residents. More recently, in 2008, tributyltin—a paint used to cover the hulls of boats—was outlawed in Europe after it was found to be extremely toxic to both humans and the marine environment, with the World Health Organisation reporting a 20% to 40% increase in the risk of certain types of cancer after regular contact with the substance. That shows us the importance of regulation and vigilance.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for her speech, and for the brilliant contribution she makes to the Committee. I am sure she was far more than 50% of the way there in this inquiry. If she did not feel that way, she certainly did not let on. I know that the inquiry was difficult. Does she agree that information sharing and knowledge sharing are a really important part of the REACH regime? This stuff is all around us and the evidence only builds up gradually, in bits and pieces, because we do not conduct controlled experiments on ourselves to see what gives us cancer—that would be unethical. The information emerges over time, and we are often ignorant of the damage that a chemical is doing to our body. When that gets out, there is always a vested interest that does not want it to be banned, changed or removed. That is why REACH is the global gold standard.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is absolutely right. I do not think I need to add anything to that. My hon. Friend has told us, in a nutshell, why it is so important to be vigilant and on top of things—almost ahead of the game—in terms of what is being brought on to the market. If we are not, there could be quite devastating consequences that we might not discover for years. New chemicals are being manufactured continually, so we cannot rest on our laurels.

It is impossible to know what chemical regulation will look like in the future, so to transpose current standards without supplying the surrounding infrastructure would be an approach that was totally unfit for purpose. It is not a case of bringing in a law and then putting it into operation in the UK, as has been said—such a law would be out of date almost immediately. As we have heard, the infrastructure that is required to regulate chemicals is extensive. REACH manages tens of thousands of chemicals, with an estimated 140,000 chemicals present in the EU market, and 33 new chemicals are awaiting evaluation.

When we were in the United States, we discussed the time-lag—how long approval can take. I think the US system has been improved now, but, at one point, if a chemical had not been assessed and approved within, I think, six months, it automatically got approval by default. That seems a dreadful way of going about things, and I think that the US has introduced new legislation on the matter fairly recently. We want an efficient and speedy but absolutely thorough system that can get these new chemicals on the market or reject them as required.

The UK has the second largest number of REACH registrations in the EU. It is important to remember that REACH is a relatively new creation; it did not come into existence overnight. It came into force in 2007, after many years of preparation, and there are 600 people working on it at the European Chemicals Agency. There is a suggestion that we could create a British REACH. There was some laughter in the Environmental Audit Committee when the Minister coined the acronym BREACH, because it is probably not the best name for our own chemicals regulator. If we were to create BREACH, it would be impossible and absolutely foolish to try to replicate the work of REACH, when there are 600 people already working on it and we could seek to be part of it. Trying to duplicate that work would require the investment of a huge amount of time, resources and expertise.

We know that DEFRA has suffered from budget and staffing cuts over recent spending reviews. It has so many competing priorities—it seems to be about to release a new plan or strategy every other week—so I do not see how it could take on this task as well. We cannot match the pooled resources of all the EU member states. If we try to operate with a reduced capacity and a pared-down scheme for regulating and managing chemicals, the negative impact on the environment could be huge.

Hundreds of chemicals are classified as toxic to marine life under EU harmonised classification. That includes 1,045 chemicals that are classified as very toxic to aquatic life, 933 chemicals that are classified as very toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects and 405 chemicals that are classified as harmful with long-lasting effects. I use the marine environment as an example because, as people will know, it is a passion of mine. The organisation Blueprint for Water estimates that, even with the stringent regulation that is in place at the moment, at least 27% of total ecosystem losses are due to chemical pollution. Reduced capacity could further expose humans and animals to numerous cancers, disrupted reproduction, immune dysfunction, DNA damage and deformities, to name just a few concerns.

There is also the problem of persistent pollutants, called bioaccumulators, which build up inside cells or environments over time, meaning that humans, animals and the natural world are still exposed to them today. The negative impacts are felt only when a certain threshold of accumulation is passed, and that could be many years after their use begins. Bioaccumulation often occurs through food chains, with those at the top suffering from the worst exposure—in most cases, humans are at the top of the food chain. Polychlorinated biphenyls, which were once widely used in electrical products, paper and flame-resistant coatings, are a prime example. It took many decades, pre-REACH, for a ban to be finally implemented, and during that time people were regularly exposed to dangerous carcinogens. Surely, it is better to take a pragmatic approach and attempt to stay in REACH. Although it is not perfect, it has, as I said at the start of my speech, the support of both sides of the equation: the vested interests in the chemical industry, and those who seek to protect the environment, humans and animal welfare.

REACH is being constantly updated, and it has had 38 amendments since its creation. UK companies would have to continue to comply with REACH if they wanted to continue to trade with the continent. As we have heard, even if only a small component of a product—with a car, for example, it could be the paint, the seats or any of 101 different elements—is manufactured in the UK, that small part may well have to comply with REACH. The UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum recorded that there was a

“clear consensus that businesses did not want to see a weakening of environmental standards”,

and that the industry wants to maintain access to REACH after we leave the EU.

REACH is also closely connected with the EU’s classification, labelling and packaging legislation, as well as the more general EU health, safety and environmental legislation. Just as “chemicals” includes a wide variety of substances, so too does the body of regulation that is required to adequately govern them. If we leave REACH, it is not just a case of replacing it; the UK would need to offer up a substitute for EU regulations, including the sustainable use of pesticides directive, the biocidal products regulation, the industrial emissions directive, the bathing water directive, the drinking water directive and the urban waste water treatment directive, to name just a few. They are all interconnected.

The UK has signed up to a number of sustainable development goals that bind us to regulate chemicals properly and not to support a drop in standards. They include ensuring that by 2020 we use and produce chemicals in ways that do not lead to significant adverse effects on human health and the environment; and, by 2030, reducing the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination, as well as improving water quality by minimising the release of hazardous chemicals.

That strays on to the turf of another Environmental Audit Committee report on the sustainable development goals and how we can implement them in domestic policy. Again, we were not particularly happy with the Government’s response, and I am sure we will continue to pursue the matter. Despite the obvious risks and uncertainties that face both the chemical industry and the health of the public and the natural environment, the Government’s response to the EAC report was disappointing and rather lacking. I urge the Government to commit to and implement the Committee’s recommendations, because the cost of failing to act, and of not being adequately prepared for when we leave the EU, is too great. In the Government’s election manifesto, they promised to be

“the first generation to leave the environment in a better state”

than they found it, but achieving that is incompatible with their current approach to chemicals regulation, and with any regulatory system that does not adequately protect humans, the environment and animals to the extent that REACH does.