Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Selaine Saxby]

Yes, in many ways I agree. I will certainly come on to speak far more about the global implications of the situation. While we are doing so much on our own island, we need to do so much more. In particular, the upcoming deposit return scheme, confirmed in the environment improvement plan, will bring the UK in line with similar nations, and recycle 90% or more of relevant containers.

Alongside reducing use and recycling as much as possible, we also need to look at the hierarchy of waste and reusing plastic products where possible. I ask the Minister to look at setting a target for the reuse of packaging, alongside our work on recycling. By setting a target, we would incentivise businesses to invest in reuse schemes that reduce the amount of resources required in our packaging supply chains. A recent UN report on reducing plastic pollution found that proper reuse systems could reduce plastic pollution by 30% by 2040, compared with 20% for recycling. Investing in and facilitating a reuse system would also reduce the cost of waste management and increase jobs in the sector. Unfortunately, despite UK efforts, plastic has been entering the ocean for decades and continues to do so.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Microplastics continue to threaten our marine ecosystems, with research showing that fishing net pollution is deadly for sharks, seabirds and seals. Does she agree that the solution to this must be found through balancing industry productivity while increasing necessary regulation?

[Selaine Saxby]

Of course, it is vital that we find a balance. Fishing materials continue to be an issue, which is why I think that some of the initiatives that are already under way to help the industry to recycle more are so vital.

As I was saying, plastics have been entering the ocean for decades and continue to do so. Between modern-day plastic and legacy plastic—the oldest piece of plastic that has been found is a buoy from 1966—there are trillions of pieces of plastic floating in our oceans. They affect our entire ocean’s ecosystem at every stage, from turtles getting trapped in nets to plastic breaking down into microplastics and slowly building up in our food chain.

Although we do not know as much about our seas as we should, we know that plastic has negatively affected almost 700 marine species. Microplastics also slowly sink down through our oceans to settle on the ocean floor, forming plastic deserts that kill wildlife and can stretch up to hundreds of kilometres. The largest floating patch is the great Pacific garbage patch, which contains more than 100 million kg of plastic over an area three times the size of France. It is the largest example of an ocean gyre where the currents draw flotsam to a point. As the convergence spot of the currents from the south Pacific and the Arctic, the zone is a plastic superhighway. It takes an average of only seven years for plastic floating in the ocean to reach the great Pacific garbage patch.

We know that the next generation care passionately about the planet, particularly their oceans and beaches. As a coastal MP, I know how engaged our schools are with this issue, and it often acts as an introduction to wider conservation work. Last year, I attended Greenpeace’s big plastic count, which almost a quarter of a million people took part in, including more than 9,500 school students. That shows just how seriously our youngest constituents take plastic pollution. Books such as “Ruby Rockpool”, which was written by the mermaid Hannah Pearl, suggest ways that youngsters can help. They bring the problems to life, but unfortunately solutions are not as simple as in Hannah’s excellent book, in which the ocean is healed with a sea star’s power.

Of course, no matter what we do domestically, this is ultimately a global issue requiring a global solution. The UK is responsible for almost 7 million sq km of the world’s oceans, and one of our overseas territories in the south Pacific demonstrates the challenge. Henderson island in the Pitcairn Islands is both uninhabited and thousands of miles from the nearest population centre. Despite that, an estimated 40 million pieces of plastic rubbish have landed on its shores. The island is home to the endangered Henderson petrel and the flightless Henderson crake, and is an important breeding ground for many other large seabirds. As we saw in Sir David Attenborough’s excellent “Blue Planet II”, the impact of plastic in the ocean extends to seabirds and can lead to parents feeding their offspring plastic instead of fish.

To limit the continuing impact of plastic on our oceans and food chain, we need not only to reduce how much plastic waste irresponsibly reaches our environment, but work to remove it. Fortunately, there are innovative start-ups such as the Ocean Cleanup, which undertakes the only efforts to remove legacy plastics from our oceans. It aims to remove 90% of floating plastic from the ocean by 2040.

[Margaret Ferrier]

As we know, tiny microfibres are entering the sea due to us washing our clothes. The company CLEANR is now turning to 3D printing technology to create microplastic filters for washing machines. Does the hon. Member agree that we must continue to use new technologies available to develop innovative solutions to this environmental crisis?

[Selaine Saxby]

Indeed, I sponsored the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on that topic. Although there is much work to do on microfibres, the plastics I will talk about are significantly more dramatic, in terms of their magnitude and the skills that are needed to clean them up.

To remove the waste from the gyres, the Ocean Cleanup is using a combination of computer modelling, artificial intelligence and space-borne plastic detection to identify the densest areas of plastic to optimise clean-up. It has created a trawler-type solution that pulls a semi-circular 4 metre-high net system very slowly—half walking speed— through the garbage patch into a funnel called a retention zone, which takes the plastic on to ships to be taken back to shore. It sounds very simple, but it is in fact highly complex to work in the open seas of the Pacific and protect wildlife—it has several active systems to prevent bycatch—as it removes different types and sizes of plastic pieces. As it scales up the system, it is reducing the cost, and it aims to reach €10 per kilo of plastic waste.

As 80% of marine plastics are estimated to have come from land-based sources—the remaining 20% are from fishing and other marine sources—the Ocean Cleanup is also focused on preventing waste from reaching the ocean in the first place, predominantly from rivers. It has identified that 1% of the world’s rivers are responsible for transmitting 80% of those land-based plastics to the ocean. To prevent that plastic from entering the oceans, it has developed the Interceptor system, which is currently focused on the most polluting rivers. Its Trashfence system is used in the Rio Motagua in Guatemala, which currently emits approximately 20,000 megatonnes of plastic into the Caribbean each year, or 2% of all the plastic emitted into the world’s oceans annually. That is a key scheme for the Ocean Cleanup to be working on.

For the Ocean Cleanup to achieve its aims, it needs long-term, dependable funding. So far, it has raised more than $250 million from private donations. It is asking the UK to become the first Government to support it financially. At present, it needs $37 million to fund one of its new systems per year.

As a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, which called for a target in the UN global plastics treaty to stop plastics entering our oceans by 2040, the UK Government are leading the way in a global effort to clean up our oceans. They could signal a greater dedication to cleaning up the great Pacific garbage patch ahead of a legal obligation. They could also help with mapping the problems around the world, such as in the Atlantic and Indian oceans, where the UK has permanent naval bases.

The UK has an excellent capability in oceanographic research, and could work with the Ocean Cleanup to help it with the vital mapping of the gyres so that we know where to find the plastic, how much is there, what it likely consists of, where it is coming from and so on. The Ocean Cleanup has proven know-how, as it was the first to fully map the great Pacific garbage patch.

Although plastics have a significant impact on our wildlife, they also affect island nations smaller than our own. The Pacific island nations are not just on the frontline of rising sea levels; they are among those most affected by the increase in plastic in our oceans. China is working hard to court them and extend its influence and power projection, but the UK still has significant interests in the region. China is one of the world’s largest polluters, and the UK can strengthen its ties in the region by supporting measures to limit plastic pollution and help clean up other island nations’ waters.

The UN global plastic treaty second round negotiations next week are another opportunity for the UK to push for positive changes to our environment as a global leader. At COP26, we secured the Glasgow climate pact, and at COP15 in Montreal, we pushed for global protections of biodiversity and nature. We need to add our voice to negotiations to secure limits to virgin plastic production and unnecessary plastic use. With the fifth largest marine estate in the world, and a population dedicated to protecting our environment and wildlife, we are well placed not only to cut down on our own plastic waste but to lead global efforts in cleaning up our oceans.

We need to remove legacy plastics while they are retrievable. If we wait too long, they will break down into microplastics and we will have a far harder job of removing plastic from our environment. I hope the Government will not only continue to implement their environment improvement plan, but will lead support for projects such as the Ocean Cleanup.

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

Again we are debating the huge and growing threat of plastic pollution in our oceans. According to Recycle Track Systems:

“There is an estimated 75 to 199 million tons of plastic waste currently in our oceans, with a further 33 billion pounds of plastic entering the marine environment every single year. This constant flow of plastic production is simply too much for existing waste management and recycling infrastructure.”

Plastic makes up 85% of all marine pollution, and unless we reduce the amount of plastic waste we produce, it is simply impossible to meaningfully tackle this shocking and dangerous situation.

Fishing equipment makes up a huge quantity of marine plastic waste—currently 20%—and, at current rates, will be enough to coat the entire planet in just 65 years. Plastic pollution harms animal health disproportionately and impacts on the ecosystems of developing countries. It is estimated that across the UK, 5 million tonnes of plastic are used every year, around half of which is packaging and half of which is not successfully recycled, with only around 9% of global plastics recycled each year. Plastic waste often does not decompose and can last for centuries in landfill or end up as litter in the natural environment, which in turn pollutes soils, rivers and oceans, and harms the creatures that inhabit them.

We know that the scale of this problem is huge. It is a daunting and global challenge, but we can mitigate our throwaway culture, and the best way to reduce the amount of plastic entering our oceans is to reduce plastic waste.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The plastic polluting our oceans can largely be attributed to single-use takeaway items. However, such products are often relied on for food hygiene purposes. Does the hon. Member agree that we must work to establish a valid alternative to single-use takeaway items that meets food hygiene standards?

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes. The hon. Lady tempts me, because I will say more about that in a moment.

Recycle Track Systems says:

“There are numerous initiatives to curb ocean plastic pollution at any one time, including everything from grassroots beach clean-ups to international agreements. One of the recent changes is the United Nations Environment Assembly’s agreement in March 2022 to develop a legally binding treaty to bring plastic pollution to an end. It will still be years in the making but is a considerable step forward according to many. What’s more, many organizations, such as Ocean Conservancy, are now calling for more dramatic changes to stop ocean plastic pollution, such as the reduction in production and consumption as well as outright bans on single-use plastics”—

as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned— “Many are calling for a shift to a zero-waste circular economy as the only solution to a plastic problem that we can’t recycle away.”

The Scottish Government aim to make Scotland a zero-waste society with a circular economy. They have a target of recycling 70% of waste by 2025, exceeding even EU targets, and they are matching the EU target for plastic packaging to be economically recyclable or reusable by 2030. The Scottish Government are also a signatory to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s new plastics economy global commitment, which will ban specified items of single-use plastics in EU member states. They have signed up to the agreement, even though there is no compulsion for Scotland to do so, as it is no longer a member of the EU, sadly. I hope the UK Government will follow the example of Scotland and the EU in that regard.

Scotland’s deposit return scheme works on the basis of the polluter pays, a principle that incentivises recycling, reduces litter and tackles climate change by reducing the amount of plastic going to landfill or ending up in our oceans. The scheme has been delayed because the First Minister is very keen to work with business to get this right. It is in all our interests, even if it is sometimes tempting to make cheap political points about this issue. The reality is that it is a fine and noble principle, and we should all work to make sure that it can do what it says on the tin. We all need to think about how we use, reuse and dispose of our plastic, because that is the problem that oceans face today.

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, but the point is that we cannot all move at the speed of the slowest caravan. We have to be bold and ambitious in what we seek our deposit returns scheme to achieve. What she proposes would be a better way forward, but the UK Government are slower and less ambitious. That is a pity, but we cannot be held back by that.

The scale of the plastic pollution in our oceans is catastrophic, and it is deeply damaging and deadly to marine life and habitats. It is difficult to know how many marine animals are killed each year due to plastic pollution. Many will go completely unrecorded. That said, some estimate that over 1 million animals, including many sea turtles, die each year due to plastic pollution in the ocean. The majority of animals that die are seabirds. Mammals are often more visible in the media and the public imagination, but they actually count for only around 100,000 deaths. That is still a huge number, but it does not tell the whole story. Those are just the marine animals that die as a result of plastic debris in the ocean. The toll would be much higher if other polluting factors, such as emissions from plastic production, were taken into account.

On a different tack, animals carry microplastics in their bodies, so when those animals are eaten those microplastics are also ingested. The process is called trophic transfer of microplastics. Since one animal eats another, microplastics can move through the food chain, ultimately reaching the human food chain. Some scientists have estimated that the average person might eat 5 grams of microplastics in a week, which is about the weight of a credit card. Another study breaks that down to being up to 52,000 particles annually from various food sources. According to the UN, there are over 50 trillion microplastics in the ocean, more than the number of stars in the Milky Way—that is astonishing. Due to the sheer quantity of microplastics in the ocean, it is difficult to find any marine animal without plastic particles in its gut or tissue. It is poisoning their food supply.

Whether or not microplastics impact human health is a relatively new field of study, but what we know so far is troubling, according to experts. Plastics and microplastics contain many harmful additives and tend to collect additional contaminants from their surroundings. Microplastic ingestion has been correlated with irritable bowel syndrome, while plastic-associated chemicals, such as bisphenol A, show correlations with chronic illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. We are talking about serious contamination. Action on plastic waste in our oceans requires us to reflect very carefully on the price we pay for plastic pollution—and the price our oceans pay.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Traces of microplastics have even been found in the placentas of pregnant women and in human blood. The risks of microplastics for human health cannot be ignored any longer. Does the hon. Member agree that we must end the plastic pollution of our water for our own health, as well as for the environment?

[Patricia Gibson]

It is the case that we are polluting our oceans, poisoning our marine life and, ultimately, poisoning ourselves. I do not think that is too stark a way of putting it. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct.

I am pleased we have had this debate, but the international community needs to take co-ordinated and serious action for marine and human health. I am looking forward to the Minister telling us what the UK Government will do, and what international efforts she believes can be made, led by the UK, in this regard. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate, because it is important that we keep a spotlight on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this hugely important debate, which is so well timed ahead of the treaty negotiations next week, and on the day that the water companies have listened to huge anger from the public and Labour MPs over sewage spills. There were 301,000 in the UK in the last year alone. English water companies have apologised and said, “More should have been done”. Many would say that that sums up the Government’s policy over the last 13 years—surely, more should have been done. However, it is heartening to see cross-party agreement this afternoon about the need to tackle plastic pollution and the damage that it does to our oceans. I thank all the Members who have spoken today.

This afternoon, I am speaking in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is attending to a family commitment in Newport. Given my campaigning on plastic in wet wipes, for example, and as a WWF ocean champion MP, I am hugely grateful to have this opportunity to talk about Labour’s commitment to preserving our planet and protecting our environment.

We have reached a critical point, and I am here today to impress on the Minister how serious the situation has become. The facts speak for themselves. According to the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, 12 million tonnes of plastic enter our oceans every year, where they become a hazard for marine wildlife and make their way up the food chain and on to our dinner plates. Plastic production is increasing. The carbon that that uses and the pollution that it causes is also increasing and damaging our oceans. Only Government action can counter the power of the plastics industry and do what our constituents want, which is to save and protect our oceans.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I welcome the calls for the UK to use its position on the world stage to deliver the UN global plastic treaty. It is imperative, however, that the treaty offers all workers across the plastics supply chain the opportunity to transition to sustainable jobs. Does the shadow Minister agree that the UN global plastic treaty must be inclusive and recognise the interests of indigenous people?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. The writing needs to be on the wall for the plastics industry. We need to say that creating more and more virgin plastic is just not acceptable, and there needs to be a transition to a future and to a green jobs revolution across the world, as we hope to have in this country.

I thank all of the ocean activists who have campaigned for our oceans, including Surfers Against Sewage, the Marine Conservation Society, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WRAP, and David Attenborough and his “Blue Planet” programme, which several Members have mentioned. I also thank the Putney Tidy Towpath group and Thames21 in my constituency, who clean up our beautiful River Thames. I thank all the equivalent groups across the country who do so much work to clean up our rivers. They want to know what is happening at a Government level so that they do not have to keep coming back and picking up the plastic week after week. They are watching this debate very closely.

So many children in schools have asked me about this issue. I have been to many classrooms where there are ocean animals swinging from the roofs and pictures on the walls. We have had so many questions from children; we know that it matters to people across the country, but especially to children.

No one doubts the importance of plastic to the modern global economy, and it has transformed human life in many positive ways. However, this is the bottom line: our production and consumption habits, coupled with the current waste management systems, are totally unsustainable, and we are heading towards an irreversible environmental catastrophe if we do not take action.

If we continue on the current trajectory, the OECD estimates that global plastic production will double by 2040. In the UK alone, it is estimated that 5 million tonnes of plastic is used every year, nearly half of which is packaging. We cannot detach plastic from climate change. Plastic is highly carbon-intensive to produce. According to a study published in the journal, Nature, last year, plastics are responsible for 4.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing about 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually. Tackling plastic production means saving the planet.

We also know that 100 million marine animals die each year from plastic waste alone, according to the Marine Conservation Society, ranging from birds to fish to other marine organisms. It is a disgraceful state of affairs and we must all do more, go further and try harder to preserve our planet and protect our environment.

With recycling rates where they are and with most plastics single use, it is no surprise that plastic is oozing its way into our water at an unprecedented rate, and 80% of marine pollution originates on land. We cannot rely on beach and river clean-ups to keep our beaches tidy. We need to take holistic and co-ordinated action to end plastic pollution.

As many Members have pointed out, plastic pollution is far-reaching. It is found everywhere—in all parts of the world—from fresh Antarctic snow to the deepest ocean trenches. The pollution that we see on our streets and our beaches is just the tip of the iceberg.

Plastic pollution harms human and animal health. Plastic has been found in human blood, mothers’ placentas, whales’ stomachs and numerous fish, sea birds and other marine animals. The World Wide Fund for Nature believes that a human could ingest about 5 grams of plastic every week, which is the equivalent of a credit card, just because of the way it moves through our food chain. We might literally be eating a credit card’s worth of plastic every week.

Plastic pollution of the ocean obviously crosses borders as well, so we need to do all we can in the UK. However, without leading successful global action, we will not save the oceans. Half measures from the Government simply will not wash.

One issue that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention is how Government action can protect our environment through banning plastic in wet wipes. In 2019, 11 billion wet wipes were used across the United Kingdom, and 90% of them contained some form of plastic. The use of wet wipes has increased enormously since then, because of covid and additional hygiene uses.

Wet wipes with plastic in do not break down; they pollute our rivers and oceans, harm wildlife and clog up our sewers. Tesco and Boots have stopped all sales of wet wipes with plastic in them. They have led the way on that and shown what can be done. A ban, however, would create a level playing field for businesses and make action go further and faster.

The Government promised to take action to ban plastic in wet wipes in 2018. They held a consultation on that and on other single-use plastics, which closed in February last year. I welcome the announcement that, from October, there will be a ban on other single-use plastics, such as plastic plates, trays, bowls, cutlery, balloon sticks, polystyrene cups and food containers, but we now need to know the date for the ban on plastic in wet wipes. It could have been included in the Environment Act 2021 or in the water strategy, with an actual date, but there is still no ban. I hope to hear more from the Minister on this issue later.

The Government should go further and faster to preserve our planet and protect our environment, as a Labour Government under my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will do. In Labour-run Wales, the Welsh Government, under First Minister Mark Drakeford, have committed to banning a range of single-use plastics. Their long-standing commitment to reduce waste and unnecessary plastic is outlined in their circular economy strategy, “Beyond Recycling”, which aims to have a zero-waste Wales by 2050.

That is important, because it is about priorities, focus and action, and I am sorry to say that priorities, focus and action have not been the order of the day with this Government in Westminster. The Conservatives have been in power for 13 long years, but have left the agencies that should tackle waste and pollution underfunded and understaffed. No wonder we have not seen the action that we need. We have seen the mess that has been caused with sewage pollution. The Environment Agency has struggled to tackle waste crime and monitor waste exports, and councils are struggling to deal with waste effectively while cutting waste collections. Government Members shamefully voted against Labour’s amendments to the Finance Act 2021 on a plastic packaging tax, which would have required the Government to pay due regard to the principles of waste hierarchy and a circular economy. The Conservatives are weak on tackling the effects and causes of all waste. Labour would take the issue seriously. Action is a no-brainer, and we have to get on with it.

I have seven questions for the Minister. First, as I am sure she is aware, in 2018, the UK launched the Commonwealth clean ocean alliance with Vanuatu, which brings together 34 Commonwealth countries in the fight to tackle plastic pollution. Can she update us on the progress that the programme has made, and what the next steps are? Secondly, will she consider bringing forward a national action plan for tackling plastic pollution to increase the focus and action on this issue?

Thirdly, will the Minister give an update on progress towards the deposit return scheme? Fourthly, she will know that plastic packaging accounts for nearly 70% of our plastic waste. When was the last time the Government sat down with manufacturers and worked on a road map for eliminating plastic packaging in food and other products, thereby driving down plastic production?

Fifthly, have there been discussions with the Secretary of State for Education regarding the role of schools in tackling plastic pollution? They have a huge role to play. Sixthly, can the Minister provide more detail on the upcoming ban on plastic in wet wipes that was announced in April, and will she meet me and my shadow Environment colleagues to discuss it? Finally, can she give an assessment of how well the Government’s environment plan is working in relation to reaching their target of eliminating all avoidable plastic waste by 2042, and whether she feels that target is ambitious enough in the light of the need to save our oceans?

Our oceans are precious. Plastic pollution is irreversible, drives biodiversity loss, and has a devastating impact on marine and human life. Without dramatically reducing plastic production and use, it will be impossible to end plastic pollution in our oceans. Banning plastic in wet wipes is widely supported by the public, MPs, retailers and producers. Last year, 250,000 people from across the UK, including more than 9,000 school students and 36 MPs, including myself, took part in the Big Plastic Count. Such actions show the public demand for action. The public are on board and so are the Opposition. We are just waiting on the Government. If they do not have the appetite for it, we will provide the plans if they step aside.

I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for bringing this critical matter to the House. I am so glad that we have had this debate, especially this week. I assure her that she has an ally in the Labour party if she wants real, ambitious and comprehensive change and protection for our natural world.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Sir Christopher. You might be pleased to hear that I may not go on for half an hour, but that will give a little time for my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) to respond. I thank her for bringing this matter before the House. She is a great champion for her constituency, particularly on subjects connected with water and the coast. I do not think that anyone could ask for more on that front. She has to be praised for all the work that she has done, and particularly for bringing this subject for us to debate today.

While Members across the House have our differences, there is an awful lot of common ground. Plastic in the ocean is unacceptable, and we have to do something urgently to tackle it. To the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), we have probably all been in and out of schools. It is honestly the No. 1 subject that children want to talk about. I went into Oake, Bradford and Nynehead Primary School the other day, and it was top of the agenda. I share with the children all the things the Government are doing on the environment, on plastics and on waste and recycling. I usually leave them knowing that we are genuinely tackling a lot of these issues, which are so important not just to children but to us all.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon sent a letter to the Secretary of State, and I will respond. I was waiting until today, just in case any matters arose from the debate, but she will get her response very shortly. I thank her for all the work she does in North Devon. I will expand a bit on what we are doing both domestically and internationally, because they work together, as has been highlighted today.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will make a little progress, just to set the scene.

As Members have said, the annual plastic flow into oceans will triple between 2016 and 2040, which is a pretty shocking thing to think about. Plastic has already had a devastating effect on the environment and it is due to get worse, which is why we have to take urgent action both domestically and internationally. Although it would be wonderful to take out all the plastic in the oceans—we have heard some really good stories about how that has been done in many places, and credit to all the organisations doing that work, many of which are voluntary—the absolute key is to tackle the problem at source and to reduce the amount of plastic going on to the market, so I will talk about that in some detail. It is what the Government’s focus is all about.

Our environmental improvement plan 2023 states that we have targets for reducing all forms of marine plastic pollution where possible, and our 2018 resources and waste strategy sets out how we will do that. In our environment improvement plan, we have set a target of achieving zero avoidable plastic waste by the end of 2042. How will we do all that? There is a step-by-step process, and it will be done through a whole range of measures that focus on maximising resource efficiency; reusing, recycling and reducing the overall amount of plastic on the market; and keeping what plastic we do use—because there are no doubt some really important uses of plastic—in the circular economy for much longer. As we have heard from various colleagues, the key element of our packaging and waste regime and reforms is the extended producer responsibility scheme, which puts the onus on the manufacturer that places the packaging on the market and makes them responsible for its lifecycle and where it ends up. We also have the deposit return scheme, which has been mentioned by a number of colleagues. It is due to start in October 2025, but intensive work is being done on both schemes right now.

I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon about Scotland. We obviously welcome the involvement of the devolved Administrations, because it would all be much simpler if we had the same scheme. We are working very closely together. Scotland’s scheme has been held up, but we are working to progress ours as quickly as possible. The third element is our consistent collection, so that we collect the same products from our local authorities. That will help us to get good-quality recyclates, and it will help the whole system to work effectively. We are pressing on with that and will shortly announce the results of our consultation. I will also slip in at this point that we will also announce our consultation on the ban of wet wipes shortly. I recognise that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney, has done a lot of work on this issue, as have many people in this room and other colleagues across the House.

The Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), mentioned his party’s policies for recycling. He seemed to be slightly behind the curve; we are already introducing all of the schemes to tackle plastic packaging and plastic waste. We are well on the case, and realise how important those schemes are.

We have done a lot already. We have significantly reduced major supermarket retailers’ use of single-use carrier bags, as was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, by over 97%. That was enabled, or triggered, by the 5p charge. We have since introduced the 10p charge and extended it to all retailers. That is really making the extra difference we need on carrier bags.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes. I have spent a lot of time working on cigarette butts as well. They are a nasty, poisonous, polluting litter item. In fact, in terms of numbers of items littered, they are the largest. A lot of work has been done on that front. We work very closely with WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme—on options for tackling the littering of cigarette butts, which include making the industry more responsible for the cost of dealing with them. We are considering next steps now. The hon. Member may not be aware that, with the stick hanging over the industry, it has come up with £30 million to voluntarily deal with cigarette butt littering. We will watch closely to see how that proceeds.

In October 2020, we introduced measures to restrict the supply of plastic straws, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned, as well as plastic drink stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds, which we did ahead of the EU. We are building on that progress with our recently announced bans on single-use plastic plates, bowls, trays, containers, cutlery and balloon sticks from this October. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent reminded us, quite starkly, why we need to do this—those things stay in the environment for so long; she gave the figure of 400 years. We are doing absolutely the right thing in bringing in those bans. As time progresses, we will review those bans to see whether they are effective and to make sure that we have the right processes in place—I think the shadow Minister asked about that.

The form of marine litter with the greatest known impact on marine life is abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear, known as ghost gear. That has been estimated to cause a decline of between 5% and 30% in some fish stocks. The Administrations of the UK are committed to working together, and with industry, through the British Irish Council, to develop solutions for the collection and recycling of end-of-life fishing gear—the gear left lying about on the quayside—of which there is a large quantity. To fulfil that commitment, the UK is reviewing domestic measures for end-of-life fishing and aquaculture gear with the intention of moving the sector towards a circular economy model, finding ways to recycle that material. It is quite complicated, because the gear contains a lot of different materials. We will ensure that any new requirements do not create a competitive disadvantage for our fishing industry.

Regional sea conventions can also play a key role in co-ordinating action, sharing knowledge and monitoring the state of the ocean, and as a contracting party to OSPAR—the regional seas convention for the protection of the north-east Atlantic—the UK participates in monitoring programmes to assess regional trends in marine litter and develops and takes action in co-operation with our nearest neighbours. In 2021, OSPAR contracting parties agreed the north-east Atlantic environment strategy. The strategy has a number of objectives on tackling marine litter in the north-east Atlantic, including a strategic objective to prevent inputs of, and significantly reduce, marine litter, including microplastics in the marine environment. Under the strategic objective, contracting parties also agreed to publish an updated regional action plan on marine litter, which was published in 2022.

The strong programme of domestic and regional action means that the UK is well placed to be a leading voice in tackling plastic pollution on the wider international stage. The UK was proud to co-sponsor the proposal to prepare a new international, legally binding plastic pollution treaty, which was agreed in the United Nations Environment Assembly in February 2022.

[Margaret Ferrier]

With Malaysia’s high contribution to plastic pollution, and its status as a comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership country, does the Minister believe that our recent accession to the bloc could be a good opportunity to drive environmental change with trading partners?

[Rebecca Pow]

One of our key focuses is on environmental protection. We are doing a great deal of work, as I am outlining, on the international stage to work with our partners, and influence them on things that we are doing at home—demonstrating that a lot of those things can be done nationally. The aim is to reduce, reuse, recycle, and limit the amount of plastic going on to the market in the first place.

The process for negotiating the new agreement that the UK co-sponsored is under way. The first intergovernmental negotiating committee was in November last year. The UK took an ambitious stance on that, supporting a treaty that will restrain the production and consumption of plastic, address plastic design and encourage more recycling and reuse. Those are the things we think are critical.

The UK is also a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, which is a group of 50 countries that are calling for a target under the treaty to stop plastic from flowing into the environment by 2040. That very much reflects our approach at home. We reiterated that commitment at the recent G7 meeting in Japan, where all G7 nations committed to ending plastic pollution, with the ambition to reduce additional plastic pollution to zero by 2040. We are going to continue to push for ambition at future negotiation sessions, including the forthcoming one in Paris, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. My officials and I will go to that, and we are hoping for real, useful progress there. Every colleague in the Chamber has mentioned the importance of international treaties and work.

We already support a range of initiatives to remove or remediate plastic in the marine environment. We support the Fishing for Litter initiative and many other local schemes. Fishing for Litter is a voluntary, unpaid litter bycatch removal scheme for commercial fishermen, run by KIMO, a network of local authorities, which provides fishing boats with bags to dispose of marine-sourced litter collected during normal fishing operations. Fishing for Litter South West England is currently funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair’s fisheries and seafood scheme. In 2018, we also changed marine licensing measures to make it easier for divers to recover marine litter, including fishing gear. That is something they highlighted to us, and we had to make a tweak to enable them to be able to do that and safely dispose of it when they brought the litter back on to land.

Under the OSPAR Commission’s regional action plan for marine litter, the UK works with other contracting parties to implement actions. The plan includes an action to prevent, locate and handle abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear.

I also agree with the importance of monitoring plastic pollution. The UK co-funds the Marine Conservation Society’s recording of litter from sections of our coast. That helps us to monitor plastic pollution levels and trends. That data is used in combination with other monitoring data to measure the impact of our policies and inform our decisions about how to tackle marine litter. Its information was really useful in informing our work and regulation on the ban of cotton buds. We looked at the things that rocked up most frequently on beaches, which included balloon sticks and so forth.

I note the valuable work done by the Ocean Cleanup, which is an interesting initiative. I cannot say that we have a pot of money to put into that, but we are certainly grateful for the work it does and we are obviously looking very closely at what will proceed from that.

We are working closely with other countries around the world to understand how to tackle legacy plastic pollution through the treaty. As mentioned, we are working hard to prevent plastic from entering the environment in the first place by making producers responsible for their plastic.

We are also supporting a lot of other international action. In 2021, the then Prime Minister announced the new £500 million blue planet fund, which lots of colleagues are familiar with. The fund aims to protect and enhance the marine environment and reduce poverty. It includes a focus on tackling marine pollution and supporting coastal communities. That point was raised; we have to bring the communities along with us in all that.

Through the UK’s blue planet fund, we are working with the Global Plastic Action Partnership to take collaborative action on tackling pollution in developing countries, including Indonesia, Ghana and Vietnam. Through that partnership, the UK is supporting the creation of national roadmaps to address plastic pollution, which outline the action, finance and innovation needed to achieve national commitments. In Indonesia, for example, the partnership is working towards a target of reducing mismanaged waste by 70% by 2025.

The blue planet fund’s ocean country partnership programme is also supporting countries to tackle, reduce and mitigate marine pollution through the development of science-led policy and the strengthening of marine expertise. Everything must be science based. That is what they are working on.

The UK also appreciates the critical role that young people play in paving the way for change. Since 2019, we have supported the United Nations Environment Programme’s Tide Turners plastic challenge badge. That has developed a community of over 500,000 young people doing work on plastic pollution.

The UK also contributes to PROBLUE, the World Bank’s multi-donor trust, which supports the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources. A key component of that is prevention and management of marine pollution. PROBLUE projects aim to address the threats posed by such pollution, including litter, plastics and land-based sources that are contributing to what goes into our seas. Additionally, the UK co-chairs the Commonwealth clean ocean alliance alongside Vanuatu. I think the shadow Minister mentioned that. We work very closely with them on the Commonwealth blue charter’s action groups. We have delivered the Commonwealth litter programme, which is delivering scientific technical assistance across all Commonwealth countries. It is proceeding very constructively.

I have just a couple of questions left to answer. I think I have answered the question about the evaluation of the effectiveness of our bans because we have to qualitatively and quantitively analyse the difference that our policies are making. We are committed to doing that, and we are evaluating the impact of the plastic straw ban. The timing of that evaluation is dependent on our progress in introducing our other packaging reforms, but it is currently scheduled for 2026-27.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) is a great advocate of the work on plastics and microplastics. He always talks about nurdles, and he did not fail to do so today. They are pre-production plastic pellets—the raw materials used in the production of plastic items—and they can be lost all over the place. It is shocking how much we find them on our beaches and in the sea. In 2019, the British-Irish Council recognised the need to address that source of microplastics, and it committed to learn from a trial supply chain approach that is taking place in Scotland. We are watching that carefully. The Administration supported the development of a publicly available specification developed by the British Standards Institution, which set out how businesses handling or managing the pellets can reduce pellet loss. It is the first initiative of its kind, and it was published in July 2021.

Hon. Members raised overseas exports of plastic waste. We plan to consult later this year on options to ban the export of plastic waste to countries that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Government have committed to that, and it is being rolled out.

I hope I have demonstrated the enormous amount of work that is being done on this front, but that is not to say that there is not an enormous amount to do. There is: this is a huge problem. We are taking action domestically through the new initiatives that we are rolling out. They are a game-changer for lots of people and local authorities, so we will have to bring people with us. I think we will do so, because there is such a positive attitude towards reducing our plastic waste.

I once again thank everyone who took part in the debate. It is good to get this issue on the agenda. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon for securing it.

Marine Protected Areas

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Marine Protected Areas.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate this issue again, which is one that I feel passionately about and I intend to keep pushing on.

This is not the first time I have pursued this matter on the Floor of the House. Two years ago, I brought forward a private Member’s Bill, the Marine Protected Areas (Bottom Trawling) Bill, with the objective of banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas. Since then, I have been pleased with what the Government have done. They have taken the first steps in the right direction by banning bottom trawling in areas that are particularly important. We were not able to do that when we were part of the common fisheries policy. That Government have made a good start, but while the intent is good, progress is not yet rapid enough and planned measures not extensive enough to provide adequate protection to key species around our shoreline.

I want to set out the measures that are essential if we are to protect and restore a thriving ecosystem around our shores. I do not believe that this needs to be done at the expense of the fishing industry—indeed, it must not be done at its expense. I see no reason why fishing boats from ports around the UK cannot continue to do the important job that they do today. What must stop is the situation where large, industrial-scale boats are able to scalp our seabeds, towing huge mechanisms behind them to hoover up marine life, without regard to what gets trapped in their nets. That is what has got to stop.

Outside the EU, we have a chance to pursue a different course. As we approach the review of the post-Brexit arrangements—that is not too far away now—we need to make sure that we do not leave nature behind when planning the future of the industry. The starting point is our marine protected areas. I have said it before: most people would be astonished to discover that marine protected areas are not really properly protected at all.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Despite measures to protect marine protected areas from damaging fishing gear, ecosystems were subjected to more than 130,000 hours of industrial fishing in 2022; 7,000 of them involved the use of destructive bottom-towed fishing gear. Does the right hon. Member agree that current Government measures are not sufficient to protect MPAs from detrimental fishing practices?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Member makes an important point about the nature of the equipment and the damage it does to the seabed. I think the Government have made a good start in the process, but there is a way to go.

I want all our marine protected areas to have the same protections that have been introduced to the Dogger Bank. I hope that, after this debate, the Minister and officials will get a move on. The job is not nearly completed. We now have the first four or five areas protected. The Dogger Bank is particularly important, and that is a good start, but every day of needless destruction in other marine protected areas causes more damage to our ecosystems, which will take years and years to restore.

My message to the Minister today, first and foremost, is that we need to get on with stopping these destructive practices altogether. That is why I have particularly focused on bottom trawling. If we destroy the seabed and the habitat of the creatures that live on it, we also deeply damage the food chain for the fish who live there. In doing so, we compound the problem for our fish stocks. To my mind, there is a benefit to the fishing industry in sorting out adequate, proper and appropriate protections for marine life. I do not believe that there are any fishing communities around the UK that want to destroy our fish stocks and create a situation where fishing is unsustainable.

We must prevent the most damaging practices—big industrial trawlers, often coming from continental ports, towing vast mechanisms behind them—simply scalping the seabed and leaving a trail of destruction. We have to take a wholly new approach to managing fish stocks and supporting the industry. As stocks diminish, the industry has had to go further and further afield to stay in business. Our focus therefore must be on helping our fish stocks to recover. Proper protection in marine protected areas is an essential part of that.

If people do not engage in damaging fishing practices and there is only limited scale local fishing, marine protected areas become a breeding ground for new fish. Those fish will spread outside of the protected areas. Fish stocks have shown signs of really recovering in the small number of highly protected marine areas around our shores, and in the waters around them. That approach is beneficial to the fishing industry as well as being of absolute importance to our natural ecosystems. We must step up our approach to restoring the marine environment and managing it well so that both nature and fishing can flourish.

My first ask of the Minister—it is one of a number—is to drive forward with bans on damaging fishing practices in marine protected areas. There really is no reason why that cannot be done in the current Parliament. Let us take responsibility. We have done some great things in government, including taking the legislative framework for nature protection further than it has ever been before. Before we get to a general election, let us be able to say to the country that we have completed the job, that we have provided those protections in the MPAs and that we have done what we started out to do. My message to the Minister is: please, let us get on with it.

We must also take a further step forward and provide even greater protections for our most important waters. As recommended by the Benyon review, I want to see highly protected marine areas around our shores. In such areas, no extractive activity is permitted, and nature can be left to its own devices. In the few areas around the UK where really tough protections have been put in place already, there has been a resultant rapid increase in local marine populations. That has happened only on a very small scale in the UK, but the results have been dramatic. It benefits the surrounding fisheries because if an area’s nature, fish stocks and ecosystems are given a chance to recover, surrounding areas have better fish stocks and healthier marine life. If we look after nature, the benefits work for everyone.

My second request to the Minister is this: let us move to designate our most important ecological areas as highly protected marine areas. If we ban all extractive activity in those areas to help them to recover, we will provide a real boost to the surrounding seas too. I say that fully in the knowledge that we must find a balance for the fishing industry; we cannot just close the fishing industry off from large areas of the waters that it has fished for centuries. However, it is also in the interests of the industry that there are patches where we provide complete protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I accept that we need to look strategically at all our waters to see what the right approach is, but I do not think this is something we can simply not do. The need to protect and restore the ecology around our shores is such that we must take bold steps, although we should take those steps fully aware of the potential impact on coastal communities, and work in full consultation with those communities to identify the best places on which to focus. This is not something we can avoid doing, or even try to avoid doing. We need to step up the pace to provide protections where it is appropriate and most important to do so.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the right hon. Member for being generous and giving way again. The 2015 figures show that 341,000 people were employed full time in the marine economy, with sectors such as marine transport, defence and oil and gas among the largest employers. Does he agree that the Government must balance employment and environmental concerns to ensure that the UK marine economy moves forward in a sustainable manner?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not think that there is any contradiction between high-quality environmental protection and employment, and indeed the welfare of communities. It is paramount that we get the marine ecology piece right. We have done so much damage to nature in this country that, frankly, it is to our benefit and our children’s benefit that we start to turn back the clock.

I will touch on another area where there has been a loss that needs to be restored.

[Chris Grayling]

Most immediately, we are only recently free of the common fisheries policy, so it was never that straightforward. We now have the opportunity to get a move on, though. That is why I set a goal for Ministers for this Parliament. I see no reason why we cannot provide, in the course of this Parliament, a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. It does huge damage to the seabed and to ecosystems. Most members of the public in this country, and frankly most people in coastal communities, will be amazed to discover that a large continental fishing boat dragging huge amounts of equipment behind it can scour the seabed. To my mind, that is the first priority. The second is to start looking at additional areas, as the Benyon review recommended, where localised no-take areas can be put in place to help the ecology recover.

My next point is about the seabed itself, which is crucial. We hear a lot about the need to plant trees and reforest degraded areas. As hon. Members know, I am passionate about my view that deforestation is a blight internationally and needs to be reversed. However, the loss of seabed habitats—kelp and seagrass—also has a big ecological impact, and we must deal with that as well. We have seen huge loss of seagrass beds around the world and around this country. Restoring and expanding the seagrass and kelp beds on our shores and under our waters is important because it helps local marine ecosystems and is a rather quicker way of absorbing carbon than planting a tree. The Government and all those who work in this field should be eagerly pursuing the opportunity for this country to contribute to our 2050 net zero goal by restoring the traditional kelp and seagrass beds around our shores.

My third request to the Minister is, therefore, for regulatory and financial support for those working to restore seagrass beds and kelp forests. We have lost 90% of our seagrass beds, with a corresponding loss of small marine creatures; many species are vulnerable to disappearing altogether. That would be a sensible, logical part of the good Government strategy over the coming decade of turning around the loss of nature in this country. Of course, there is a financial benefit too, and groups that work in this field have highlighted a number of areas where the UK can benefit financially from a smarter approach to marine protection, but it is not about money. It is just the right thing to do. It is also necessary to protect our future.

I very much hope that the Minister will follow up on all three of those requests, but I also want to touch on an area outside the United Kingdom: the future of the marine areas we do not control around the world. I pay tribute to the UK team that played an active part in the recent negotiations to secure the international agreement on the future of our oceans. As they did at the COP summit, the Government have continued to play a leading role internationally in seeking better protection for and the recovery of nature. That is clearly a very good thing, and Ministers and officials should take credit for it.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I commend the ethos behind the blue planet fund and the Government’s commitment to aid developing countries in protecting marine environments, but it is vital that the many workers in the microplastic industry are given the opportunity to transition into alternative jobs. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the blue planet fund must be inclusive and sensitive to the economic realities of developing countries?

[Chris Grayling]

We clearly have to be sensitive to the issues in developing countries, but they do not benefit from a damaged environment. I see this proposal as beneficial to everyone on the planet. I do not see any downside to living on a cleaner, greener planet. It will bring different kinds of job opportunities. There are many opportunities across the developing world—renewable energy is an opportunity in parts of the world that are hotter and windier than the UK—so it is not an either/or. There are benefits to pursuing an environmental strategy and an economic strategy.

International agreements are all well and good, but to make those strategies work, it is action that matters. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing around the world remains a huge problem, despite the international community’s readiness to talk positively about growing the number of marine protected areas around the world. That is a good thing, but those areas have to be protected. Illegal activity is doing real damage around the world. It is making fish stocks much less sustainable, and is having a big negative impact on smaller coastal communities. One of the key steps to deal with that problem and to protect our marine protected areas is to require every fishing vessel around the world to have satellite monitoring devices on board and to keep them switched on. Even in our own waters, boats occasionally go dark, but elsewhere it is a particular problem. I will be grateful if the Minister touches briefly on what the Government are and will be doing to address this issue.

There is also a job to be done onshore. I have long argued for a system of food labelling in this country that indicates clearly how sustainable the product and its supply chain are. A lot of the focus has been on products such as palm oil from south-east Asia and soy from Brazil, and we need to keep pushing on those issues. It is very much a current problem: recently, beef from deforested areas of Brazil ended up on Tesco shelves. We in this House should clearly keep the pressure up, to ensure that we bring about the right international pressure against deforestation, and that the Government do what they can to move us in the right direction.

We really have to step up progress on food labelling. When the Environment Act 2021 was before Parliament, I pushed the issue of moving towards a system of sustainable food labelling. Ministers made encouraging noises, and committed to doing work on that, which I know they are, although I want to see it happen straightaway, or pretty much straightaway. May I ask the Minister to give the Chamber an update on that work and on when we can expect a proper sustainable food labelling system to come to fruition? Unless and until we can demonstrate to consumers that the products they are buying are from sustainable sources, or that they are not, so consumers can take a decision not to buy them, we will not bring to bear the full weight of consumer power on this issue.

There are always limits to what Governments can do, but consumer power, harnessed in the right way, can probably make a bigger difference than any politician can. We need to bring the full strength of consumer power to bear on marine protection, environmental protection, combating deforestation, and creating a greener, more nature-friendly world. That is basically my message to the Minister. Let us get on with completing the work on banning bottom trawling from all marine protected areas. Let us start the process of going further in expanding highly protected areas, though not in a way that completely cripples the local fishing industry. Let us work with the industry to do that, but let us get a move on to make it happen. Let us do what we can around the world to turn the recent international agreements on illegal fishing into action.

Let us move to bring in sustainable food labelling in this country, and let us continue to focus, on both sides of the House, on the protection and restoration of nature, whether it is seagrass beds, kelp forests or the things that we need to do on land. This is an agenda that the nation increasingly feels passionate about. There is a real need for action before further damage is done, but the opportunity is enormous. We can make a real difference over the next decade, so my message to the Minister and the Government is please get on with it.

Food Price Inflation

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are moving to a new phase—away from the common agricultural policy and towards environmental land management schemes. If we listened to him and his party, and agreed to motions that they have tabled in this place and the other place, we would cut off farmers’ access, up and down this country, to the environmental land management schemes, which also cover countryside stewardship. The fatal motion his party has tabled in the other place would crash the rural economy, and destroy the opportunity for farmers to move to a new system and improve our environmental impact.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Food retailers report that food packaging is a key area in which costs have risen significantly. That contributes to higher prices in shops. What conversations have there been about supporting businesses in reducing packaging, or sourcing more affordable materials?

[Mark Spencer]

There have been many conversations, both across Government and with producers, manufacturers and retailers, on reducing the amount of plastic packaging that we release into the environment, and on making packaging more reusable and recyclable, and less costly to the consumer.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I am pleased to see the Bill return to the Chamber for its final Commons hurdle. The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has done an outstanding job and is a dedicated advocate for the cause. I wish to thank organisations and individuals for their continued work on the campaign to see the Bill pass, and for the briefings that they have provided.

I have been disappointed to see the persistent lobbying from certain interest groups against this legislation, often intentionally based on misinformation and on hiding behind the transparent and false veil of conservation. I spoke in some detail on Second Reading about the misrepresentation of those purporting to be conservationists and I do not wish to repeat myself today. However, it does not take much scratching at the surface to see that what many of these lobbyists are looking for is the conservation of hunting for sport, rather than anything environmental. When we look at who is funding their deeply biased works, it becomes all the clearer.

On Second Reading, I argued that trophy hunting was an ugly relic of the colonial era. Let me now add that trophy hunting and poaching are, in fact, illegal for locals in these countries. It is ironic that those who seek to protect the highly profitable western white trophy hunting tourist industry might find themselves under the spotlight of that very same colonial accusation. In that context, I pay tribute to a man who has seen at first hand the positive impact of hunting bans to protect his country's beautiful wildlife: the former president of Botswana, Ian Khama. He has urged Members to support the Bill today,

“to halt the reckless, cruel destruction of nature’s wildlife by nature’s enemies”.

I would further add that the UK Government and, more important, the UK public have every right to decide that they do not want these macabre, mangled animal body parts to enter the country or to circulate here for profit. Preventing that is what the Bill will ultimately achieve. As we have heard, it will not change the law in other countries, or outlaw hunting there. Polling has shown unequivocally that the British public, including many of my constituents, support an outright ban on trophy imports, and do not support proposals for a partial ban or “smart bans”.

In 2020, the Government consulted on banning the import of hunting trophies. Their subsequent policy statement said:

“Within the consultation, we asked whether exemptions should be considered, for example for conservation reasons. We note the strength of sentiment from those who did not support exemptions, and there will be no exemptions for hunting trophies from species in scope of the ban.”

It is clear that some of the exemptions that some Members were trying to include in the Bill were not in keeping with public feeling—the public feeling that the Government were able to test through public consultation It is also clear that including any exemptions to a ban would undermine the very purpose of the legislation. Where we allow loopholes to exist, we also allow people to find ways of exploiting them.

I think it is fair to say that participants in this “sport” come from one main demographic—rich white men, and sometimes rich white women—and it is those in that same demographic whom the proceeds benefit. They are seeking to protect their financial interests at the cost of the existence of some of the world's most beautiful animals, the conservation of natural resources of wildlife in Africa, and Africa’s communities. I therefore urge all Members on both sides of the House to throw their full support behind the hon. Member for Crawley and his Bill, which is a critical and overdue change for the better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Could everyone who is trying to catch my eye please stand up? It is a bit confusing if only one Member does so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Pets are, of course, very precious to people and, after children, are often their No. 1 priority. It is important to try to make sure that people are generous. I make a plea to dog and cat food manufacturers to help their customers at this challenging time. The Budget will take place soon, but I want to manage expectations. I do not expect changes to VAT rates for specific products, but let us do what we can to make sure that our pets get fed.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Given the Secretary of State’s view that the financial sector must invest in projects to prevent biodiversity loss, what steps are the Government taking to incentivise businesses to play their part?

[Trudy Harrison]

We are working across Government, including with the Treasury, to identify opportunities for green finance. We absolutely recognise that in this country, but also all around the world, nature-based solutions and reducing the harm caused by public subsidies are a priority, as set out at COP15 in Montreal by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Bee-killing Pesticides

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of bee-killing pesticides in agriculture.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. It is good to see so many parliamentary petitions attached to this debate, showing the true breadth of concern about the health of these essential pollinators. I am grateful to all the petitioners, who share my passion for bees. I hope that the debate does their concerns justice.

Before we start, I declare an interest: my family keep bees on their farm in Cornwall, and I am a patron of Pollenize, a fantastic community interest company in Plymouth that champions pollinator conservation. I also thank Buglife, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts, Green Alliance and the all-party parliamentary groups on bees and pollinators and on the environment for their help in my preparation for the debate.

Although my remarks today will focus on bees, we should remember that moths, butterflies, wasps and beetles are also pollinators, but as I said, I will confine my remarks to bees. I bloody love bees. They might be small creatures, but a lot rests on them. Today, up to three quarters of crops globally are pollinated by bees. The decline in bee populations has led to concerns about food security as well as the impact on biodiversity and ecosystems, but just last Monday the Government issued yet another so-called emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB, which contains a bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, for the treatment of sugar beet seed for the remainder of this year. This is the third time that the Government have granted emergency permissions for that bee-killing pesticide to be used.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. The European Court of Justice, Europe’s highest court, ruled that the use of bee-killing pesticides was not acceptable, even under emergency exemptions to protect sugar beet crops, which he mentioned. France has this year decided not to grant the exemption, but the UK Government have. Does he share my concern that the Government may be allowing our environmental standards to slip?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

That is exactly right. If we are to have a proper nature-based recovery, and if the Government are to achieve their ambitions as set out in not only the Environment Act 2021 but the associated piece of legislation that this House has passed, we need them to follow their own procedures, and I do not think that they have in relation to the authorisation. I will explain why.

When we left the European Union, the Government promised to follow the science on bee-killing pesticides. How is that going? On 6 September 2021, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury, then a DEFRA Minister, told the Commons:

“Decisions on pesticide authorisation are based on expert assessment by the Health and Safety Executive.”

Another DEFRA Minister, Lord Goldsmith, gave the same commitment, word for word, in the Lords that month. That surely means that bee-killing pesticides will be used only when the science shows that it is safe to do so. Right? Wrong.

The Government’s own expert committee on pesticides concluded on 30 January this year, in a report that can be found on the Government’s website, that the requirements for an emergency authorisation of bee-killing pesticides had not been met. It stated:

“On the basis of the evidence presented, the Committee agreed it supports the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemical Regulation Division’s assessment that it is unable to support an emergency authorisation, as potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators outweigh the likely benefits.”

How can the decision have been made through expert assessment—on the science—as Ministers claim, if those very same experts say no to bee-killing pesticides? The decision to authorise bee-killing pesticide use is not supported by the science, the politics or the public, so why are Ministers allowing bee-killing pesticides to be used again this year?

If Ministers are serious about neonic use being temporary and exceptional, I want the Government to provide more support for sugar beet farmers, so that they can invest in other reasonable control measures, such as the greater use of integrated pest management. I back our British farmers, and I know my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), will say something similar. They have had enormous upheaval over the past few years. The withdrawal from the European Union, the change in subsidy regimes, and the fact that it is now harder to export have hit our farmers hard, so we need to find support for them. While critiquing the Government’s authorisation of bee-killing pesticides, I want to lend my support to those beet farmers, who, I recognise, face financial hardship if there is an aphid-spread infection in their crops.

How is best practice on crop hygiene, establishment and monitoring being shared with beet farmers? What investment are the Government making in the development of pest-resistant varieties of sugar beet and other crops? Why did Ministers previously say that the use of bee-killing pesticides would be temporary as new crop varieties would be coming up? What steps is the Minister taking to encourage industry to pay its fair share of the cost of transitioning away from neonic use? Sugar is big business and it is a high-value crop. We have heard before of funds designed to help farmers affected by aphid crop loss, so why grant authorisation again now if there are resources available for the farmers who are suffering from it?

The public will find it hard to believe that this granulated money-making machine is unable to give the sugar beet farmers that it relies on a fairer deal, so as to help them with crop failures, and so that they can develop a robust system of integrated pest management. It is welcome, and perhaps slightly curious, that although DEFRA last week gave a green light to the use of bee-killing pesticides, it simultaneously announced a new subsidy for farmers—the sustainable farming incentive—to encourage them not to use bee-killing pesticides. There is an easier way of preventing the use of bee-killing pesticides: instead of paying farmers not to use them, we could ban them, as Ministers promised to do, as we should be doing, and as other nations are doing.

I think we have stumbled on a new political truth: as long as the Conservatives are in power, whatever the science and their approval process says, they will approve the use of bee-killing pesticides. I challenge the Minister to prove me wrong on that. I did so last year in this very Chamber, and here we are again; bee-killing pesticides have again been authorised for use. More bees will die, and I predict we will be here again in 2024 unless Ministers have a change of heart. Each and every year until we get rid of that political truth, more bees will die. This is not temporary or exceptional; it is now a firmly established annual authorisation of bee-killing pesticides. This is my challenge to Ministers: prove me wrong by not authorising them next year.

Ministers need to provide more evidence of the impacts to inform the science. The reports from the Health and Safety Executive and the Government’s own pesticides committee—the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides— highlight a number of science holes in the evidence that they require in order to understand the impact of this authorisation on bees. Will the Minister respond to that?

Will the Minister report how much of the sustainable farming incentive has been used to lower the use of neonicotinoids? Will he ensure that there is not only catchment area science for any use of neonicotinoids, but field-edge studies for every field they are used in? At the moment, the evidence relates to selected fields and catchment areas, which are often too large. Will he ensure that there are catchment and field-edge water studies for every field that neonics are used in? Will he ensure that the cost of science is billed directly to any farmer using Cruiser SB, so that the taxpayer does not lose out?

The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides said that it would be beneficial to have an assessment of the quantity of active substances deployed in the environment as part of the suite of information used to determine whether the benefits of insecticide use outweigh the environmental risks. Will the Minister agree to do that?

[Margaret Ferrier]

The economic value of pollination to UK crop production is approximately £500 million a year. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the use of these toxic pesticides is short-sighted, particularly as bee numbers rapidly decline?

[Luke Pollard]

The use of bee-killing pesticides is short-sighted. It is designed to be a quick fix to help farmers who are in a real pickle. I do not doubt the seriousness of the problem, but the longer bee-killing pesticides are authorised annually, the easier it will be to authorise them annually for evermore, and the easier it will be to extend their use to other crops, because the precedent has been set. That is why this House must be firm that bee-killing pesticides should not be used and should be banned.

I would also like the Minister to look at the datasets available for the monitoring of the use of Cruiser SB. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides highlighted that it can see evidence and data only from selected months, not for the whole year. Will he commit to providing data for the whole year to the experts scrutinising this policy? Will he update the House on the development of alternative resistant varieties of crops before any future authorisations are made?

Will the Minister publish in written form whether the Conservative party has received any donations from sugar companies that want to use Cruiser SB? I do not believe the accusation sometimes levelled at Ministers that there is a link between this decision and donations, but the accusation is made in debate on the subject, and the matter would benefit from the full glare of public scrutiny.

I do not want bee-killing pesticides to be used. I do not think they carry public support or confidence, and I want the Minister to explain why he has overruled the scientific bodies that the Government previously relied on for the rigour and relevance of their evidence on the use of bee-killing pesticides. The gap between green rhetoric and green delivery is now a gaping chasm when it comes to bee health.

My final ask is for a parliamentary vote on the use of bee-killing pesticides. I believe the Government do not have the public support for bee-killing pesticides. The majority of beekeepers and farmers, and all MPs, want greater scrutiny of that decision. My proposal to the Minister is that future authorisations of bee-killing pesticides should be subject to a parliamentary vote, in which MPs should have the genuine opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons of using neonicotinoids. If the Government want to continue the use of neonicotinoids—I believe that Ministers have now set out an automatic annual approval process—we need to make it politically impossible for that to happen without Parliament approving it.

Last year, I warned Ministers that, just as decisions to approve bee-killing pesticides are annual, this debate will also be annual. This is now the annual bee debate; it might not always be called by me but, as long we have Ministers in power who believe that bee-killing pesticides have a place in agriculture, it must be part of the annual political calendar, and it must be a day of shame for Ministers who authorise bee-killing pesticides.

MPs from all parties have received correspondence from constituents, asking them to speak in this debate. Lots of colleagues in all parties wanted to speak but are unable to be here. The message about saving bees is cross-party, and it needs to be one that the Government hear loud and clear.

If we are to tackle the climate and ecological emergency, we need more than words—we need action. We need an annual moment of action: a vote to determine whether bee-killing pesticides can and should be used. If we do not have that, it will make securing a net zero, nature-positive future so much harder. Bee health is non-negotiable; our planet depends on it. We must ban the use of bee- killing pesticides.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am pleased to participate in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for comprehensively setting out the issue before us—the use of bee-killing pesticides in our agriculture.

The issue matters very much to my constituents, and I know it matters to constituents across the UK, because we all receive large amounts of correspondence about it. The reason for that concern is that bees play a crucial part in our ecosystem; we must do all we can to protect them from the detrimental impacts of environmental alterations and climate change.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature list shows that as many as 24% of Europe’s bumble bee species are now threatened with extinction, despite being worth a staggering £690 million per year to the UK economy. Bees are vital to our agriculture. One out of every three mouthfuls of food we eat exists because of pollination. Bees pollinate an array of crops, including apples, peas, courgettes, pumpkins, tomatoes, strawberries and raspberries. If we lose bees and other pollinators, growing many types of food would be extremely challenging. Our diets would suffer tremendously. The variety of food available would diminish and the cost of certain products would surge. Many argue that pollination provides one of the clearest examples of how our disregard for the health of the environment threatens our very survival.

Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 species of bee, and a further 35 are considered to be under threat of extinction, not least because of toxic pesticides, which we are talking about today, and climate change. No species of bee is protected by law. The contribution of honey bees to nature and food products is significant. As we have heard from a number of Members, up to three quarters of crop species are pollinated by bees and other pollinators, so bees are the ultimate symbol of a healthy environment in terms of our climate, our food security and our natural world. Bees could not be a more important factor in those areas.

When we look at what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in England, this is again a tale of two Governments. The Scottish Government launched its “Pollinator Strategy for Scotland 2017-2027” to make Scotland a more pollinator-friendly and sustainable place by protecting indigenous bee and butterfly populations. The strategy sets out how to make Scotland a place where pollinators can thrive and how those objectives can be achieved. Importantly, it raises public awareness about the value of Scotland’s pollinating insects and the regulation of non-native species.

While that is going on, we have a UK Government who, as we have heard today, have no real sense of urgency about this important matter. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport pointed out that the UK Government have retained the pesticide, along with other neonicotinoids, banned in the EU in 2013, using the EU temporary emergency exemption. Measures in the EU to protect pollinators, including bees, are in place, but the UK opted out of them. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who is no longer in his place, about the impact of glyphosate and the need to address that issue.

For the third year in a row, the Government have authorised the continued use of thiamethoxam—I hope I pronounced that properly. The European Court has ruled against its emergency use, because it is known to be lethal to bees, wasps and other pollinators. It poses a danger not just to wild bee colonies, but to humans, as it is linked to a wide range of health challenges.

It was not so long ago that the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), declared:

“We cannot afford to put our pollinator populations at risk”—

yet here we are. Members have reminded us that one teaspoon of pesticide is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. The sensible way forward, in the face of the facts that we have heard today, is surely a total ban on bee-killing pesticides.

Many people, including SNP Members, encouraged the UK Government to make the Environment Act 2021 stronger by following Scotland’s example in areas such as air pollution, outlawing harmful pesticides and independent oversight of environmental protection, but sadly, that was to no avail. The reality is that legal requirements set out in the Act to halt species decline by 2030 will be as written on water if the UK Government do not step up and protect England’s natural environment and preserve its biodiversity. This matters very much in Scotland, even though it is a matter for the UK Government, because bees do not recognise borders, so bees across the rest of the UK are potentially harmed by what is going on.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will just finish this point. It is important that the Government prioritise the environment and protect farmers in international deals, because improving trade is one thing, but our natural environment must not be jeopardised by poisonous chemicals that result in the death of invaluable pollinators. There must be no regression on environmental standards and protections. I urge the Minister to follow the direction and example of both the Scottish Government and the EU in banning pesticides and protecting pollinators. During the Brexit debate, many of us warned of a divergence in standards between the UK and the EU over time, leading to—as everybody feared—the lowering of standards in the UK over a range of areas. We were told that that would not happen, that it was nonsense and that the UK would be liberated to make even greater progress, but today we see our fears about protecting bees coming true.

[Margaret Ferrier]

As the hon. Member mentioned, we have some good initiatives in Scotland for bee protection, such as the Cambuslang apiary project in my constituency. Does she agree that the project does incredible conservation work for bee pollination and populations?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. Local initiatives like that must be applauded and supported, but we need a lead from the UK Government on the level of pesticides and pesticide use, so that we can support the very important work that bees do on our behalf, which many of us probably take for granted.

That brings me beautifully to my next point because, although many of us might take the work that bees do for granted, we have to remember the impact that they have on our crop production. We do not want to find ourselves in future in the same position as some fruit farmers in China, where wild bees have been eradicated by excessive pesticide use and the lack of natural habitats. That has forced farmers to hand-pollinate their trees, carrying pots and paintbrushes to individually pollinate every flower. It is simply not possible to hand-pollinate every crop that we want, but it shows the kind of nightmare scenario that we could end up in, and the impact that that would have on the food that we eat and on our survival.

This issue becomes more pressing with every passing day, as our bee numbers continue to diminish. I hope, when the Minister gets to his feet, that he will agree that it is indeed time for his Government to get busy and start saving bees, and to ban noenicitinoid pesticides before it is too late. As he has heard today, his Government need to follow the signs and remember bees and the Government’s environment improvement plan. Let me end by saying: the Government need to get themselves into a hive of activity and save our bees.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

It is very much our intention to try to help and support farmers, whether they are owner-occupiers or tenants. There is something in the scheme for farms of all shapes and sizes, but we have an eye on the farmers that the hon. Gentleman describes. As he will be aware, the TFA is a powerful lobby group. The Kate Rock review is specifically looking at the plight of those farmers, and it is having an influence on Government policy.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

As environmental and climate change goals become ever more urgent, how will updates to the plan specifically increase the use of peatland for carbon capture and storage?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, because our peatlands are under huge pressure, particularly in the lowlands, where they are disappearing. We need to try to embrace and support the farmers who are farming that land, because they are very productive in growing vegetables, particularly in the Lincolnshire wolds. We must make sure that we continue to sequester carbon in the peatlands in her constituency, as they are a huge carbon sequestration asset. That is a huge priority that this Government will continue to monitor and support.

Animal Welfare in Overseas Tourism

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am grateful to have secured this debate, which allows me to raise the important issue of animal welfare in overseas tourism.

I wish to put it on record that I am proud that the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. In this House, two centuries ago, we introduced the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822; and just last year we introduced the landmark Animal Welfare (Sentience Act) 2022. Although the Government are to be commended for this, we can go still further.

I am sure that, like me, hon. and right hon. Members are often contacted by their constituents on a whole range of animal welfare matters. I am grateful to all those in Crawley who continue to write to me on such issues. I speak today as a vice-chair of the all-party group for animal welfare and as a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation.

This is, of course, the time of year when millions of people around the country start planning their summer holidays, many choosing to escape abroad for a week or two. Let us think, however, about those half a million captive wild animals who will never have any escape from the cruel reality that they suffer for tourist entertainment around the world.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Supporters of hunting holidays will often cite conservation efforts as a benefit for communities and countries in which they are hunting, but as we know, the damage done to animal populations and biodiversity is enormous. Will the hon. Member share his thoughts on what Ministers can do to tackle misinformation in this space?

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful for that intervention from the hon. Lady, who is a steady campaigner for animal welfare issues, and I always appreciate her support. I will come on to this later in my remarks, but she is absolutely right that animal tourism has nothing to do with conservation. It is quite the opposite; it not only presents a danger to the survival of species, but potentially creates human health hazards. As part of an effort to ensure that in this country we do not allow the advertising and sale of animal experiences abroad, we should send a clear message, as she outlines, that that is unacceptable.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of wild animals are exploited for entertainment in the global tourism industry. Activities and attractions that are considered wildlife entertainment are those allowing tourists close contact with wild animals or to see them perform. Popular examples include tiger cubs made to pose for selfie photographs, elephant rides and swimming with dolphins experiences, as well as captive dolphin shows. Those activities may appear benign on the face of it, but in fact they rely on cruel treatment that harms the captive animal’s welfare.

Responsible tourism is an increasingly important factor to many travellers and some tourists have been shocked to see the high level of suffering by wild animals involved in unethical attractions abroad, including Asian elephants, which are sometimes snatched from their forest homes and families as young elephants to supply tourist attractions, for nothing more than commercial profit, monetary gain and entertainment for the tourist trade. A UK ban on advertising of overseas attractions where Asian elephants and their babies are brutalised for tourism fun has deep and comprehensive support across Great Britain.

Such a ban would steer demand and therefore supply to ethical venues where elephants and humans are safe from abuse and fatalities. Companies selling wildlife entertainment venues lead tourists to assume such activities are acceptable, when in fact they are inhumane and cause harm to wildlife. There needs to be new legislation banning the promotion of holidays and tours that include exploitative animal encounters in their advertisements, helping to end the miserable abuse by making such unethical advertising illegal.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Farm Animals

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of antibiotics on healthy farm animals and antimicrobial resistance.

It is a great honour and pleasure to be here this afternoon and to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone.

Antimicrobial resistance, or AMR as it is more commonly known, should be of grave concern to us all because it affects every single one of our constituents up and down the country. As we emerge from the shadow of the covid-19 pandemic, this looming health catastrophe must be treated with greater urgency. We are on the edge of yet another global human health crisis, described by the United Nations Environment Programme as a “silent pandemic”, except we will be able to vaccine our way out of this one. Worldwide, more than a million people a year are already dying from infections that cannot be treated with antibiotics. Our food system is broken, and this is the hidden public health cost of intensive factory farming.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. The use of antibiotics in factory-farmed animals as a method of disease prevention to compensate for poor living conditions is a huge contributing factor to widespread antimicrobial resistance. The EU introduced legislation to tackle this. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers must urgently act on their 2018 commitment to restrict preventive antibiotic use?

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the hon. Member for her positive intervention. I am sure the Minister will note it, and I will also be raising that issue later in my speech.

One of the root causes of AMR is the overuse of antibiotics on cruel factory farms. Factory farming inflicts unspeakable cruelty on billions of animals in the UK every year. It confines them to horrendous conditions often with barely enough room to turn around or lie down. This highly stressful and often barren environment can lead to injuries and severe behavioural issues, including aggression, tail biting in pigs, feather pecking and even cannibalism. The cruelty does not end there. Factory farming subjects animals to painful mutilations, such as tail docking and teeth clipping, without effective pain relief. This is not farming; it is industrialised animal cruelty. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that these stressful, cramped and unsanitary conditions create the perfect breeding ground for disease. That brings me to my next point: the overuse of antibiotics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this important debate and for laying out the situation. In the light of the pandemic, the protection of both people and animals is more important than ever, and yet serious risks are being posed by the use of antimicrobial agents leading to antibiotic resistance. The World Health Organisation described it as a serious threat that is no longer merely a prediction for the future; it is happening right now in every part of the world. That highlights the urgent nature of this matter.

In Scotland, biosecurity practices are routinely adopted as part of farm management strategies to help reduce the burden of endemic disease in Scottish livestock. Biosecurity measures are a large part of any herd or flock health plan. Responsible use of antibiotics, only when necessary, will help to reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance A co-ordinated cross-sectoral response is required to address the threat from antimicrobial resistance. The Scottish Government continue to work in co-operation with DEFRA and the UK Government across such areas, ensuring agriculture regulations within a reserved context retain the high standards we are all accustomed to.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Antibiotic-resistant germs can end up in the food that humans eat and lead to illnesses such as food poisoning. That illustrates the importance of food standards, which are high in the UK. Does the hon. Member agree that the regulations that follow today’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill must be airtight to prevent a reduction in standards?

[Steven Bonnar]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent point, and I am sure the Minister will be listening. She always speaks with authority on such matters.

Scotland’s food and drink sector continues to be successful, as we collectively follow the science in determining what is best for animals and, of course, safe for human consumption. Scotland and the rest of the UK’s agriculture sector has some of the very highest standards in the world, and we are rightly proud of them. However, these gains are being sacrificed in trade deals with countries with lower standards and requirements. Total farm antibiotic use is five times higher in the United States and Canada than here, 16 times higher in Australian poultry, and triple in Australian pigs what the UK would allow.

The UK falls behind the EU, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, mentioned earlier, in vital areas. Regulations covering antibiotic use on farm animals were tightened across the European Union in February 2022, but due to Brexit and the UK Government’s intention to deregulate—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West mentioned the Bill before the House today—the UK has not followed suit. UK Ministers have also previously refused to commit to an outright ban on preventive use.

In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate said it would set out proposed regulatory changes as part of a public consultation during 2022, but they have not to this day responded to queries about whether the directorate would propose a ban. It remains legal in the UK to give antibiotics to farm animals routinely, rather than when they are sick or have an infection, and also to import animal foods produced with antibiotic growth promoters. The then Scottish Trade Minister, Ivan McKee MSP, called on the UK Government to seek action on AMR in all future trade agreements after the UK failed to do so when it struck its trade deal with Japan. The EU has also required similar acknowledgement as part of previous trade deals; it was successful in getting Australia to acknowledge the risk of AMR.

It is vital that the UK Government tackle antimicrobial resistance not only domestically but internationally through diplomacy and trade negotiations. If Scotland can take such action to protect our own farm animals through our very limited powers, then why can the UK Government not do so with the powers that they have? If they cannot, then why not provide the people of Scotland with the full authority to manage all our affairs?

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Hedgerows are absolutely fantastic, as I saw for myself here in Parliament at the hedgerow showcase of CPRE, the Countryside Charity. As we treble tree planting across this country, I will ensure that we do everything possible to put hedge planting and protection at the forefront of our priorities.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

What discussions have Ministers had with colleagues about monitoring and restricting plants brought into the UK from overseas by the public to protect biodiversity and food production?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady raises an important question. It is critical that we have that information for the public at our borders, as well as the targeted information focused on nurseries. We will continue to inform the public that bringing alien species into this country is bad news for nature in the UK.