Snares

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate, and the more than 102,000 members of the public who signed the e-petition, including constituents of Rutherglen and Hamilton West. I also thank Animal Aid and the League Against Cruel Sports for their excellent briefings ahead of today’s debate.

The United Kingdom is blessed with beautiful countryside, greenery and, of course, wildlife. The public feel very strongly about protecting that wildlife, as we can see through the sheer number of signatures added to this petition and others, and through opinion polls. According to OneKind, 76% of the Scottish public support a ban on the use of snares. We have some good animal welfare legislation, and the Government’s action plan for animal welfare sets out a positive agenda. I recognise that this policy area is in large part devolved, and I will touch on the position in Scotland slightly later.

To state the obvious, I agree with the many voices calling for a ban on snares on the basis that they are cruel and indiscriminate—they often capture non-target species. Our registration and regulation models are ineffective in tackling the issues presented by the use of snares. Self-locking snares are rightly illegal, so we are discussing free-running snares today. In England, their design and use are guided by a voluntary code of practice, but DEFRA research found that there are low levels of compliance, or even awareness of it.

It is really important to recognise that, when not properly maintained, free-running snares begin to degrade and can act similarly to illegal self-locking snares, which continue to tighten. A huge number of snares are set every year—running into the hundreds of thousands—so although owners are responsible for checking them every 24 hours and ensuring their upkeep, that is not realistically achievable.

Because the code of practice is industry-owned and non-statutory in England, and because snares are predominantly used on private land, it is nearly impossible to monitor compliance. In Scotland, the use of free-running snares is more regulated. Training, registration and record keeping are mandatory in law, and there are five-yearly reviews of the effectiveness of the legislation. The latest review, published in February 2022, included an acknowledgment that a further and wider review of snare use would be necessary, given the continuing concerns regarding the welfare of animals caught in snares. I hope the Minister can provide some detail on what work she and her colleagues are undertaking to engage with the devolved Administrations on a ban to ensure animals are protected fully and equally across the four nations.

Even when used in compliance with the guidance or registered, snares pose an unacceptable risk to animals. I mentioned that they are often not checked every 24 hours, as the code sets out, and there are many reasons for that, but think about what that means for an animal trapped within one for hours, days or weeks on end. In a panic, they may aggressively struggle and die of asphyxiation. They may, like a human, freeze in fear —also known as tonic immobility. If snared by non-intended parts of the body, such as the leg, shoulder or abdomen, animals can suffer horrific injuries and be left suffering needlessly until someone comes to release them. Some gnaw at the wire, biting at their own flesh to try to get out. They may be preyed on by another animal, or die of hypothermia, dehydration or starvation. It is horrific and cruel.

DEFRA research also found that up to 68% of the animals caught in snares were non-target animals. That presents a whole raft of other problems; for example, the stop on a snare set for a fox will already be much too tight for animals such as badgers—which, by the way, are legally protected.

I want to illustrate why the Scottish Government are conducting a wider review, and why the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recommended a complete ban on snare use in December last year. Last week, a news article highlighted a horrible incident of a young badger cub caught in a snare in Skyeburn, leaving it hanging from a gate while it struggled. A passer-by spotted the cub in distress, and when animal welfare charity worker Alexis Fleming arrived on scene she found over 20 strands of wire had wrapped around the cub’s neck and body as it frantically tried to free itself.

The cub was taken to the charity’s premises where they were able to remove the wire and treat the wounds caused. It was thought that the cub had been trapped for at least a few days. He was trapped by an illegal snare, and would have asphyxiated if not for stones under the gate he used to support himself. Bits of sharp metal in the wire, described as similar to barbed wire, were caught in the cub’s neck, leaving him suffering tissue damage and necrosis. When we say that snares are indiscriminate, that is what we mean.

It is not just non-target wild animals; pets, such as cats and dogs, have been caught in them too. It is quite normal for pet cats to roam unattended before returning home—they are free spirits. Imagine if someone’s cat did not come home one day. Because they are so independent, that person does not worry about it immediately—maybe they do not worry about it for a few days—and all the while the cat is caught in a snare, in pain and scared.

I mentioned that snares are often used on private land and estates; that is mostly to prevent animals preying on birds bred for shooting estates. That is a whole other issue in itself. Their use should not be seen as necessary—they absolutely are not necessary. Organisations with huge amounts of land to maintain, such as the Woodland Trust, the Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, do not use them.

In their response to the petition, and as part of the animal welfare action plan, the Government committed to publishing a call for evidence on the issue. That has not yet come to fruition. Many animal welfare organisations have been vocal about their opposition to snare use, including the British Veterinary Association, which stated in May that it was calling for,

“The UK Governments to introduce an outright ban on the use and sale of snares to both the general public and trained operators.”

The BVA is ready for that call for evidence when it is finally published. It is concerning that is has not been published already. Following its publication, how long will it take to see any changes enacted? I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on that and provide some much-needed reassurance that this is a matter the Government recognise as needing swift intervention. In 2023, there is no excuse to allow animals to continue to suffer such awful injury and death.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on bringing forward his private Member’s Bill today. I remember how exciting it was to have my name drawn in the ballot last year. Well done to him for getting this far. The Bill addresses an incredibly important issue that he has championed for some time. It has my full support and, I hope, the support of many colleagues from across the Opposition Benches.

I would also like to thank others for their work in this field, and for their determination to keep the subject high on the agenda, and in all MPs’ inboxes: the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on banning trophy hunting, for whom I have a lot of respect; Eduardo Goncalves, the secretariat for the all-party group; Dr Adam Cruise; Dr Jane Goodall; Peter Egan; Ranulph Fiennes; Charles Dance; and many other individuals and organisations. The campaign has garnered the support of public figures such as Sir David Attenborough, Michael Caine, David Jason, Joanna Lumley and Simon Pegg, to name just a very small selection.

As we often hear when we come to this Chamber to debate animal welfare legislation, the UK is a nation of animal lovers. I have received numerous emails in recent weeks from constituents requesting my support for the Bill, which is why I am here. Of course, it already had my support. The fact that the Bill still has such prominent and vocal support from the general public, at a time when so many people are focusing on more immediate concerns in the face of the cost of living crisis, shows the great depth of feeling. Public opinion shows clearly that the UK does not support trophy hunting and will not accept the exchange of trophies on British soil. As I stand here today, many more majestic wild animals will be shot by trophy hunters across Africa and around the world. Trophy hunters shoot an animal approximately every three minutes. I hope to speak for about 12 minutes today from start to finish, so four animals will have been killed in that time.

The animals hunted include giraffes; elephants; zebras, one of which is killed on the African continent every 15 minutes; hippopotamus; leopards; lions, whose extinction in the wild could be irreversible if just 5% of the male population are shot; cheetahs; black rhinoceros; polar bears, which are already facing extinction as a result of the challenges posed by climate change; black bears, which are native to North America and popular with British hunters; lechwe antelopes; Nile crocodiles; caracals; and, perhaps most disturbingly, primates, which have distinctly similar DNA profiles to those of human beings. Trophy hunters are on course to kill 170 million animals this century—more than two and a half times the current human population of the United Kingdom.

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of meeting former President Khama of Botswana, whom the hon. Member for Crawley mentioned. During his decade in office, President Khama recognised the urgency of the issue. In 2014, he had the courage to initiate a ban on elephant hunting in his country. His vision to focus on photographic tourism as a way to boost his country’s economy led to huge benefits for conservation in Botswana. Although the exact number of elephants in the region is hard to determine because of their nomadic roaming, it is clear that the policy had a stabilising effect on the elephant population and their numbers grew.

Sadly, shortly after President Masisi took office, President Khama’s ban was overturned and the practice of trophy hunting was reinstated, citing growing human-elephant conflict. Understandably, environmentalists have a growing anxiety that lifting the ban is simply a precursor to an attempt to legalise the ivory trade in Botswana. Legalisation of that grotesque trade would have catastrophic consequences for the African elephant population.

The decision to lift the hunting ban was certainly a political one. It does nothing for the conservation of wildlife—quite the opposite. According to Humane Society International:

“In Zambia and Tanzania, 40% and 72%, respectively, of trophy hunting areas were abandoned once wildlife populations were depleted and hunting was no longer profitable.”

The ban may be an issue that divides locals, but there is real concern about the impact on tourism of removing the ban. Tourism is the country’s highest source of foreign income after diamond mining. Many tourists were drawn to Botswana as a direct result of the ban, because they liked the fact that trophy hunters were not welcome there. Photo safaris are not just beneficial because they are non-threatening to the lives of animals; economically, they are much more beneficial than trophy hunting, both for conservation and for local communities.

This year, I also had the privilege of meeting the inspirational South African author and award-winning wildlife investigative journalist, Dr Adam Cruise. Dr Cruise specialises in animal and environmental ethics and has spent time interviewing trophy hunters to try to understand why they do it and what the appeal is. Some of the interviewees say that it is a reaffirmation of their masculinity. Recalling what they did on the hunts, they have cried at the memories. It is not hard to imagine why. How many of us could kill a wild animal and not feel the pain of that action?

Advocates for hunting tell us that it is sport—that they are going and shooting animals for leisure or for fun. It certainly is not fun for the innocent animals, who may suffer for hours on end because the hunter has failed in their attempt to shoot to kill and has only maimed their target. It is not fun for the animals who suffer dying a slow and painful death for no other reason than that the hunter wanted to have fun. It is not fun for the hunters who cry at their recollection of the hunt. It is not fun for the hunters who cannot even bring themselves to do the killing. Unbelievably, some trophy hunters pay others money to do the shooting part for them. What is even the point?

Who is this sport fun for? What do these trophies—these chopped up animal parts—really represent? Hunters take the time to wipe away the murdered animals’ blood to present a sanitised version of their kill for the ubiquitous selfie. That is barbaric. It is not the action of the civilised world that we profess to live in.

I want to touch on why we need to look more closely at this issue at home. It is not just about the trophies that end up circulating here in the UK. As we have heard, British hunters are among the top trophy hunters. It is very much an issue for us here at home, even if much of the hunting happens overseas. Trophy hunting package holidays abroad are advertised to hunters here in the UK. Safari Club International runs points-based award schemes for hunters. It offers a diamond hunter achievement award for hunters who kill animals from 125 or more different species. I will speak in more detail later about the hugely problematic lobbying that SCI has undertaken against today’s Bill.

British hunters have brought hunting trophies from at least 70 different sites’ protected species back to the UK. The CITES treaty already forbids and restricts trade in trophies for endangered species, but a legal loophole means that they are treated as personal effects, and are therefore outwith the remit of the treaty. Opponents to a trophy import ban, such as SCI, will accuse the legislation of harking back to colonialism and accuse the UK of trying to tell the rest of the world what to do, without the authority to do so. It is ironic that trophy hunting is a relic from the colonial era. In the 19th century, British hunters in Africa were responsible for the extinction of the quagga, a zebra-like animal in Africa. In the 20th century, the Arabian oryx and the scimitar-horned oryx were both hunted to extinction in the world.

SCI was recently exposed for funding a £1 million disinformation campaign that targeted colleagues across this House to block a ban on hunting trophies. It is how the SCI funded that campaign that really puts a bad taste in my mouth. Earlier this year, SCI reportedly auctioned a polar bear hunt to fund its campaign. Looking closer at the funding streams, there are significant donations from the American gun lobby, for obvious reasons.

SCI is not the only group to disseminate misleading information to try to block these measures. It is always interesting what we find when we follow the money. Let us look at the Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group. Much like SCI did, SULi had a group of experts arguing that hunting is good for conservation. One of SULi’s funders is the Russian Club of Mountain Hunters—I am sure hon. Members all know where this is going. One member of the Russian Club of Mountain Hunters is Sergey Yastrzhembsky, a former personal spokesperson for Putin. He is one of only two sponsors of the club to achieve gold level, indicating the large financial contribution that he has made to the efforts to save the cruel sport.

I do not want to hear any arguments from SCI or organisations like it. Let us not be fooled by its untruths that auctioning off a hunt is about conservation. To get that argument on my desk proves that it is not. I implore every colleague who may be less familiar with the subject matter to take the time to educate themselves on it, and I encourage any constituents listening from home to do the same.

I reiterate my full support for the hon. Member for Crawley in his quest to get this Bill through the House and the other place and, ultimately, to gain Royal Assent. I am delighted that the Minister is in her place and supporting this vital legislation. The time has come. The British public want this abhorrent practice of shooting defenceless animals for sport gone. They want the importing of bodies and body parts into their country to be banned. Only 2% of people in the UK oppose such measures. There are very few causes that can claim to have so little opposition.

Not one of us who believes in the merits of the Bill will give up until the day that all defenceless animals are protected from the despicable practices of trophy hunting. We cannot afford to lose any more of our animal species to extinction. We should know better by now. Let us all be on the right side of history. Let us in the UK lead the way and show the international community the positive impact that a ban on trophy imports could have.

War in Ukraine: UK Farming and Food Production

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the war in Ukraine on UK farming and food production.

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Angela, and thank you for your kind guidance on the dress code. I will make do at the moment, but we will see how we go when the heat of debate ratchets up.

For me, the debate had its genesis in discussions with many of the farmers in my constituency, and I start by paying tribute to them for their help with my preparations for today, and also to the National Farmers Union, which has given me so much information. The war, which in many respects came out of nowhere, has piled additional pressures on a sector that was already facing great difficulties. At the outset, however, I want us to turn our thoughts to the brave defenders of their Ukrainian homeland and the colossal humanitarian disaster that they face in Ukraine. I am afraid to say that we now also need to remember the countless victims, it would seem, of war crimes, the evidence for which mounts daily.

The invasion exacerbated existing inflationary and supply chain pressures, which will have lasting consequences for the scale of UK agricultural production. Globally, the conflict will exacerbate the pressure on food supplies in the poorest parts of the world. British farmers are growers, and they are price takers. That means they are exposed and vulnerable to the challenges of rising inflation in times of economic pressure. The cost of producing food in the UK has increased drastically in recent months. The cost of all agricultural inputs is going up, including fuel, feed, packaging, transport, energy and, of course, labour costs.

I pay tribute to all those who work in farming and food production. It is a tough sector to work in, and for people in such vital sectors, conditions have rarely been tougher. Costs are spiralling and profit margins are falling, but they keep going every day. The farmers from Cheshire I spoke to were absolutely clear that they love what they do, and they keep going because agriculture sits at the heart of the Cheshire economy and at the heart of the British economy. They do that to keep the country fed, and if we do not give them help—the help that they need—they will not be able to do it for much longer.

The humanitarian disaster in Ukraine is being felt across the globe. Large parts of the Ukrainian breadbasket are in conflict zones and crops cannot be harvested, or if they can, the grain and the produce cannot be exported, or, as we are seeing, they are being stolen by Russia.

We are seeing the crisis impacting across the world, especially in developing countries. Ukrainian grain feeds 400 million people. The UK is also affected. Brexit has not helped, with large reductions in the labour supply, but I was astonished to hear that last year an incredible 60% of the seasonal agricultural workforce came from Ukraine.

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

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. Ukrainians did indeed make up 67% of seasonal workers between 2020 and 2022—a huge contribution to the British farming sector. With more men staying in Ukraine to fight the war, does he share my concerns about the knock-on effect that that will have on UK food production?

[Christian Matheson]

I absolutely do, and the hon. Lady is right. Many of those workers are back defending their homeland—who can blame them for that? The resultant labour shortages have been met with an inevitable demand for increased wages. One Cheshire farmer told me of an 11% increase in this year alone. Without sufficient labour, farms simply cannot be profitable and, frankly, sometimes cannot work. As one farmer put it, “We’re all running hand to mouth.”

I am not going to query or reject the idea that farm labourers should not get a decent pay rise. I am a trade unionist and I absolutely support that, but the costs need to be shared fairly across the sector and borne by the whole chain. Day-to-day costs are rocketing. Fertiliser, which can increase crop yield by about 30%, has become cripplingly expensive. One Cheshire farmer estimated to me that his fertiliser costs had risen by 300% in just over a year, while another suggested that he was being optimistic and it was more than that.

The situation has not been helped by the closure of the CF Fertilisers factory in Ellesmere Port. I know how hard my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has been working to find a solution to keep the factory open, and he has told me that he is in regular contact with the Minister and her Department—I thank her for that. I desperately hope that we get a solution to the problem, and I thank them both for their work.

Without fertiliser, crop yields will fall. I remind the House that farmers do not tend to buy fertiliser on the spot. They are already ordering their supplies for next year, just as they are already planning crops, ordering animal feed and securing energy deals for six, 12 and 18 months ahead. The uncertainty globally and domestically is impossible to live with.

One of the big asks of the NFU is to have a gas fertiliser price index. Fertiliser markets are opaque, meaning that farmers have low trust in those markets, and are receiving poor market signals to enable them to be responsive. That is a threat to confidence, because farmers do not want to invest in fertiliser, which is stalling fertiliser sales, as well as threatening farmers’ productivity and the UK’s productive capacity. The NFU wants farmers to have access to proactive forward prices on fertiliser, allowing producers, distributors and farmers alike to manage their risk. That will require Government to establish a trusted gas fertiliser index with the industry, to drive transparency in fertiliser markets.

In addition, the industry needs to be able to see clearly where the market is relative to the global benchmark prices. That is well established in the grain, dairy and meat markets. It is also a fact that much of the gas that was used to produce the fertiliser came from Russia. I welcome the fact that we are reducing—I hope to zero—any dealings that we have with Russia, including buying gas from it, but we have to recognise that that will have a major impact on this market.

Fuel costs are also on the rise. Red diesel is more expensive, with one farming contractor I know of having to increase their cash reserve by an astonishing £50,000 to pay for fuel costs. Meanwhile, farmers pay more than ever to fill up the machines that keep their businesses going. Those affected ask me why crude oil prices fall, but their costs go up. The answer is sadly clear: this is a broken market, and without action to address it, things will only go downhill.

Food production relies very much on the packaging available, much of it specialised for certain foodstuffs. Even essentials such as cardboard and the necessary plastics for meat storage are in short supply, before we consider more specialised materials such as silage. British food has some of the lowest carbon footprint in the world, due to how efficient British farmers are, but there is only so much they can do on their own. Such businesses are starting to feel that they are, almost literally, at the bottom of the food chain.

As things stand, the risk is entirely with the farmer. For example, a potato farmer stored his crop from the 2021 harvest until June 2022—just last month—without earning an extra penny from the processer. One grower was paid £200,000 for potatoes, which sold in the supermarket for £4.2 million, so the grower received only 4.7%. Free-range eggs have also gone up at least 20p per dozen in supermarkets, but only 5p of that increase goes to the producer. Farmers want to grow, to survive and to flourish, but we must have a market that allows that. We need to take the bottlenecks out of the system, so that it flows more smoothly. Only by threatening to withhold supplies did dairy farmers secure a slightly better deal, and they are still struggling.

This period of unprecedented agricultural inflation coincides with the introduction of the agricultural transition plan from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, under which the old direct support payments to farmers in England under the common agricultural policy are being reduced. Farmers have already received significant cuts to those old direct payments, with further to come this year. The largest farms will receive cuts of 40%.

The Government are in the process of rolling out new support schemes, but the NFU is seriously concerned that the new schemes simply are not ready for farmers to be able to access them and start to make up the shortfall. That is not just the view of the NFU; it has been echoed by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, and the Institute for Government. Vital farm supplies sit inaccessible in Ukraine, and veterinary medication sits undeliverable in Northern Ireland because of the problems with Brexit. Alternative options are becoming scarce.

When British farmers suffer, so does the rest of the world. As the crisis in Ukraine hits other nations, one farmer asked me why Britain, as a leading member of the G7, does not consider its own agricultural sector to be part of the solution. The farmers who told me their stories also tell a sorry tale about the future of the sector. One simply asked, “Where is the future?” Every year, 8% of dairy farmers quit their business. Previously, others would step in to replace them. That, it seems, is no longer the case. As confidence falls, young farmers find that they cannot get loans. They cannot get started and cannot continue this proud British tradition.

I wish to finish on a positive note on behalf of the UK farming sector. I want to celebrate the success of the sector and the hard work and 365 days a year commitment of our farmers and farm labourers. Let us make every day Back British Farming Day and let us resolve to get a fair deal for farmers. The future could be positive. As I have said, British food has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world. Our farmers tell me they want to adapt to further change—certainly moving away, for example, from carbon-intensive fertiliser—but they want to be able to do so in a managed way and not in a way where they are faced, as they currently are, with the shock brought about by the war. They want to reduce emissions and move to more sustainable fertiliser, as I have said. They want to reduce antibiotic use and further increase animal welfare, but they are doing that now on wafer-thin margins. As one farmer put it in what is probably a very agricultural farming way, “We have no fat on our backs right now, and we need this.”

Farmers want to grow, survive, flourish and contribute to the success of our nation. The war has put intolerable pressure on them at a time when the prevailing situation was already difficult. They feel that all the increasing cost pressures are being borne by the farming sector when they should be shared across the entire food chain. We must have a domestic market that allows that contribution to flourish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Dame Angela. It is unusual for me, although I am very pleased, to be called first. You almost knocked me off my stride there. May I first of all thank the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson)? He is a dear friend—he knows that—and I support all that he said in his introduction. He set the scene very well. We are all here today because we understand the importance of farming. For me and my constituents, it is critical. I live on a farm. I declare an interest as a farmer and a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate.

I do not have the time to work on the farm as I would like to. If not for my father’s illness many years ago, I would probably have been a farmer. Unfortunately, at that time it coincided with the purchase of the farm. My job on the farm—my mother still owns the farm that I live on—is to look after the buildings and maintain the structures and roads and so on. It is quite a job. On Saturday afternoon my job is to go about and make sure those tasks are done. Next week when I am off during recess I will have more time, and will be doing all those wee jobs at night-time as well. It is an absolute pleasure and privilege to live on a farm, so I am pleased to contribute to the debate on behalf of my farmers.

I am well placed, as others are in this Chamber, to highlight the needs of the farming community. I really am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She has an incredible understanding of the issue, and I know that when we speak to the Minister and ask her a question, we push at an open door because she always responds. I mean that genuinely and seriously, because every one of us appreciates that opportunity to contact the Minister about issues that are so important to us. I mostly contact the Minister about fishing, but I have occasion to ask about farming issues today.

Russia is the world’s biggest exporter of wheat, producing around 18% of international exports, and Ukraine produces around 12% of the world’s wheat. Ukraine also produces 17.5% of the world’s supply of maize, as Farmers Guide recently outlined:

“The war in Ukraine has added another layer of uncertainty for British farmers after an already tumultuous couple of years. Recent weeks have sparked concern over the supply and spiralling cost of input and supplies, with the market changing on a day-to-day basis.”

The hon. Gentleman referred to that: there is a change almost every week, a price increase and hike, which presents lots of problems.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Global food supply chains were already facing significant pressure before the outbreak of war in Ukraine. Today, inflation has hit an astronomical 9.4%. There have even been reports that food banks are struggling to maintain enough resources. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be swift action, to ensure that vulnerable people have access to affordable food?

[Jim Shannon]

As so often, the hon. Lady makes a very sensible and helpful point. I wholeheartedly agree, not because she says it, but because I can see the practical issues for food banks in my constituency. The week before last we had a collection at the Tesco store in Ards, where people were incredibly generous. That helps the food banks to sustain their coffers, cupboards and shelves, but they tell me they see incredible pressures they have never seen before—and there have been some difficult times over the past while.

The Farmers Guide also points out:

“the market changing on a day-to-day basis—making business planning for the future extremely difficult…Livestock farmers buying in feed will have been hit by the wheat price increases from around £220/tonne to nearly £300/tonne, while fertiliser prices have reacted very strongly, rising from £200-300/tonne a year ago to around £1,000/tonne.”

That is something that farmers tell me. That is an increase of almost 400%, which is astronomical and leads to concerns about availability.

I spoke to a neighbour last Sunday on my walk at about 7 o’clock in the morning, which is always a nice time. I passed him in the lane and asked how he was getting on. He told me he does not put as much fertiliser on the ground because it is too costly. The only way to compensate is to cut back and use less fertiliser. He told me they had been fortunate this year. The first cut was not a good one, but the second cut was equal to last year, because of the weather, which has been incredibly warm, but there have been showers of rain as well. Less fertiliser is a godsend in a way; it means that the second cut of silage, and probably the third, will be good with less fertiliser. Maybe the soil had lots of fertiliser in it; I guess that might be part of the reason.

The main thing is that there is an incredible problem for farmers, who are in a precarious state at present. One local man said,

“The price we get has risen.”

That is the beef price, which is good at the minute. Lamb prices are not too bad, either. The hon. Member for City of Chester referred to poultry and eggs. Egg prices are under pressure; they are not matching the outgoings and are not sustainable. There is an onus on supermarkets to give a better price to egg producers. I am fortunate that I start every day with two eggs. Dame Angela, you are probably of the generation who remembers

“Go to work on an egg.”

I go to work on two eggs every morning, and would do that during the day, as well. I say that because of the importance of the egg sector. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that.

That local man said,

“The price has risen but the money in our pocket has not.”

One of the greatest farm economists, Mark Berrisford-Smith of HSBC, has suggested that we are now in a position reminiscent of 1973, with the OPEC crisis and the Yom Kippur war. In 1975, we saw up to 25% inflation resulting from our inability to deal with the quadrupling oil prices. There was some encouragement in the press yesterday—if it is correct—that the price of filling a car may fall by £10. I hope that is right, and the cost keeps on reducing. We need that help.

Our farmers are facing long-term problems, and now is not the time to pull back on support. Indeed, it is the time to step it up. We need to sustain and help our farmers at this present time. Our farmers are not able to fill the breach from Ukraine and Russia—it is impossible; the gap is too large—but we need to look at how to help them. To be able to fill the gap, they need support. We need to be raising new generations of farmers who are trained in the old ways and who also want to push for the new ways that enhance production and the environmental protections, providing the best of both worlds. I am a great believer in the need for farmers to protect the land and have environmental schemes in place. I know the Minister is as well. There is a balancing job to do between the two. There is land that perhaps should be in farming, and there are some concerns about some projects by some of the bigger charities, for instance the National Trust, who want to set land aside and not use it for farming. I do not want to be critical, but I make that point. That is sometimes not the right way to do it.

The impact of the Ukraine and Russia war has been large and it will continue. This House, this Minister, our Government and ourselves as MPs on behalf of our constituents must play our part in the short term, as well as the long term.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for Gainsborough, representing the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, was asked—

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

5. What steps the sponsor body plans to take to ensure that historically significant stonework is protected throughout restoration works to the Palace of Westminster.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

Following decisions by the House Commissions in February, the sponsor body paused its work on producing a business case for the restoration and renewal programme. The two Commissions have now proposed a new approach for how the programme should be governed and delivered. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that the Commissions recommend that a priority area for the work should be

“Conservation of the building fabric including stonework.”

It is intended that the new proposals will be put to Members of both Houses for debate and decision before the summer recess.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I recently took a restoration and renewal Palace tour and saw historically significant artwork painted directly on to the stone in parts of the building that are at risk of flooding. How it can be ensured that that artwork is not lost for future generations to enjoy and that it is properly protected during restoration works?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is an extremely good question. As I sit on the sponsor board, I can say that that is an absolute priority for everybody working for the delivery authority. A huge amount of work has already been done in listing and understanding every part of the fabric and every piece of artwork; the hon. Lady can rest assured that, once the works commence, every effort will be made to remove those artworks so that they are not in any way damaged.

Farmed Animals: Cages

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for opening today’s debate, and the near 110,000 members of the public who took the time to sign e-petition 593775. We should acknowledge that it is the not the first petition on this issue, and one containing a similar call to action received over 100,000 signatures back in 2019.

I have said many times before that animal welfare is an issue on which I always receive a high number of emails from my constituents, and this debate has been no exception. One hundred or so of my constituents have signed the petition, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to represent them here this afternoon. I thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming for their informative, interesting and useful briefings.

Before I get into the main content of my speech, I want to take a moment to recognise the ten-minute rule Bill brought forward by the late Sir David Amess last spring: the Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill, which would have prohibited the use of farrowing crates by 2027. Animal welfare was one of Sir David’s most passionately pursued causes, and I am sure we all agree that if the Government agree to changes in caged animal law, his contribution to so many debates and campaigns will have been a significant driving force.

The petition text highlights some of the key issues well, but there is an important specific point: caged animals have a low quality of life. They are cooped up, their movement is restricted, and they are left unable to exhibit their natural behaviours. It is unnecessarily distressing for the animals and causes suffering when it need not. The European Commission intends to ban farm animals from being caged by 2027, and is considering imposing restrictions on imports from cage systems. In fact, several European countries have already proactively banned cage systems. The petition is correct in its statement that, by not doing the same, the UK will fall behind the EU in animal welfare standards, creating further issues for future trade.

Battery cages for laying hens were outlawed across the EU, including in the UK, a decade ago. Unfortunately, along with most of Europe, we continue to allow enriched cages. Although they are better than battery cages, they are still too small for the birds inside them—the size of an A4 sheet of paper. The lack of space severely restricts the birds’ natural movements, and they are not able to run, fly or even flap their wings. The restriction on physical exercise has real health impacts, leading to bone weakness or osteoporosis. The RSPCA puts the number of laying hens in enriched cages at around 14 million, or approximately 35% of the UK’s total supply chain.

Luxembourg and Austria have already outlawed enriched cages, and Germany and Slovakia have committed to a ban in the near future. France announced five years ago that all shell eggs sold in supermarkets would be free range by this year. Further afield, Taiwan is beginning the process of phasing out cages. The removal of hen cages has huge support, with large national brands such as Nestlé and Nando’s supporting calls for the Government to introduce legislation. Another petition on change.org is closing in on 100,000 signatures.

When we go into supermarkets and do our weekly shop, we should not have to keep an eye out for free-range eggs. It should not have to be something that businesses point to as a mark of their animal welfare morals; it should be the norm. Every egg should be free range and there should be no laying hens confined to cages in the UK. With the cost of living crisis currently hitting families hard, there should be no disparity in the cost of free-range and caged-hen eggs. Retailers have a responsibility to allow the public to make the ethical choices they would like to. The RSPCA’s animal welfare index reported no evidence that income was related to the animal welfare considerations that people make when purchasing their food. It should not cost more to make the ethical choice.

We have to consider the impact on the farming industry too, bearing in mind the evidence that consumers are willing to support free range and higher animal welfare standards, even when there is sometimes an increase in cost. Retailers such as Aldi, Lidl, Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s stock RSPCA-assured products, such as eggs and pork, showing the retail willingness to support the farming industry in that movement. Most importantly for farmers is the impact a potential EU ban would have on their ability to trade. It would be economically damaging and the work to mitigate that must start now.

I have said in previous animal welfare debates that the Government set out an ambitious agenda with their animal welfare action plan, and they have said consistently that they are committed to high standards of animal welfare in the UK. That is why it seems contradictory to overlook important areas of policy such as the use of cages. I recognise the past few years have seen improvements to farm animal welfare in the UK. I also recognise the publication of the animal health and welfare programme, and the announcement of a forthcoming public consultation, and I hope the Minister can update us on the timings. The Scottish Government have also committed to a consultation this year on phasing out caged animals. It is an area in which the UK must continue to show its ambition and commitment. The public have made their view resoundingly clear for years.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is already some work going on to breed natural resistance and to select, for instance, dairy cattle that have a higher level of resistance to bovine tuberculosis, and these techniques will allow that to be progressed far faster.

On my hon. Friend’s wider point, we address that in the Bill, and I was going to come on to it. I have listened carefully to organisations such as Compassion in World Farming; that point was highlighted to me some years ago by its head of policy, Peter Stevenson. That is why we have put in some very specific safeguards to protect animal welfare, so that there can be an assessment before any authorisation is allowed. We do not want to have a situation where there could be more lameness in poultry, for instance, or other animal welfare concerns. There will be a dedicated committee to assess that.

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

Has the Secretary of State considered the impact that this Bill might have on public trust? People might be suspicious of GE food products. For those who are worried, what reassurance can be provided that genome editing will only be used where there are no other less invasive alternatives available?

[George Eustice]

I think consumers want to see fewer pesticides in their food, and technologies such as this open the door for us to achieve that. As part of the notification process that I will come on to describe, we will ensure that there is transparency and that any seed that is marketed is listed in a transparent way. The Food Standards Agency will also conduct a very thorough and comprehensive assessment of any food safety issues. I think that will give people the reassurance they need.

Returning to some other examples of crops, UK Research and Innovation funded a study that has identified promising sources of genetic resistance to virus yellows in sugar beet, a group of viruses that can cause severe yield losses of up to 50% and are at the heart of the controversy around the use of neonicotinoids in sugar beet. Introducing resistance to virus yellows will reduce the need for pesticides, boost our food security and reduce costs to our sugar beet producers.

With food security high on the agenda, we also have the ability to develop wheat that is more resilient to climate change, helping successfully to grow a crop that 2.5 billion people are dependent on globally. Researchers at the John Innes Centre in Norwich have used gene editing techniques to identify a key gene in wheat that can be used to introduce traits such as heat resilience, while maintaining high yields.

These technologies also have potential to improve the health and welfare of animals, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development of animals that have increased resistance to some devastating diseases. For instance, the Roslin Institute and Genus have developed gene-edited pigs with natural resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, a disease that causes mortality and major welfare issues in pig populations globally.

I turn now to the contents of the Bill. It will focus on four key areas. First, we will remove precision-bred plants and animals from the regulatory requirements applicable to the environmental release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. That will remove the necessity of adhering to the onerous regulations imposed by the European Union for plants and animals that could also have been produced through traditional breeding. The Bill does that in part 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

There will be transparency in the sense that any authorised product will be listed. No marketing authorisation will be granted for the sale of any food unless it has been properly assessed. However, it is not currently our intention to have some kind of labelling requirement specifically for food, because a loaf of bread might have some of these crops going into it and others produced through other techniques. We do not currently, for instance, require people to label that a crop has been produced using an F1 hybrid technique such as an open pollination. That is the comparison that I would draw my right hon. Friend’s mind to.

Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems—one for research and one for marketing purposes. Developers will have to submit information to DEFRA that will be published on a public register, and this will support consumer transparency. Clause 3 sets out the conditions under which a person may release a precision-bred organism in England. Clauses 4 and 5 set out the notification requirements for the release and marketing of a precision-bred organism. Clause 6 describes the application process for obtaining a precision-bred confirmation. This will ensure that each precision-bred organism is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Clause 7 sets out the requirement for there to be a report of the advisory committee, with further provisions in clauses 8 and 9 regarding the precision-bred confirmation and its revocation if necessary.

The Bill will not compromise animal welfare standards. As I said, it establishes a regulatory system to safeguard the welfare of precision-bred animals. This system is described in clauses 10 to 15. Clause 10 establishes that precision-bred animals will need to be authorised before they can be marketed. Clause 11 describes the application process. Clause 12 describes the involvement of an animal welfare advisory body. Clause 14 makes provision for regulations requiring information on the health and welfare of these animals once they have been placed on the market.

Finally, the Bill also makes provision to ensure that there will be no compromise whatever on food safety and that there will be a comprehensive assessment of the safety of any products placed on the market that result from precision-bred organisms.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[George Eustice]

I will give way one more time, and then I will conclude.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I am keen to understand something. Although the territorial extent of the Bill’s provisions is rather limited, what consultation did the UK Government have with their Scottish counterparts? Scotland remains opposed to GE food products being sold there, but legally cannot prohibit it.

[George Eustice]

This is a devolved matter, as the hon. Lady says. The Scottish Government have taken a particular position, which is broadly that if the European Union changed its law, Scotland would change its law at that time, but not before, and it would appear that the Scottish Government do not want to move early on that. Of course, many of the leading international research institutes, such as the Roslin Institute and James Hutton, are world leaders in these technologies. They will probably be acutely disappointed if the Scottish Government do not take this opportunity to lead the world, rather than waiting and following the European Union.

Finally, part 3 of the Bill, in relation to an assessment of food safety, sets out the powers for the regulation of food and feed derived from precision-bred organisms and includes a new regulatory framework governing the placing on the market of these products, a public register and a monitoring and inspection regime.

In conclusion, it is more than 30 years since the current GMO legislation was passed. In that time, unnecessary and unscientific barriers imposed by the European Union have stalled the development of the agritech industry in the United Kingdom. Our legislation has not kept pace with our increased understanding of the safety and benefits of technologies such as gene editing. By removing these barriers, we will enable investment in these technologies, which have the potential to tackle some of the great challenges faced by the United Kingdom and the world today when it comes to producing food in an environmentally sustainable way. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

Breed-specific Legislation

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George. I thank the almost 116,000 members of the public, including 149 of my constituents, who signed the e-petition on breed-specific legislation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on her opening remarks.

I am pleased to see the clear public support for reforming these outdated laws. I understand the aims of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and protecting the public is, of course, vital, but it is clear that the Act is not serving its intended purpose. In the vast majority of cases, a dog is moulded by its owner. While some breeds may be genetically more predisposed to aggressive traits, the way a dog is raised, trained and cared for has a huge influence on its temperament and behaviour. Any dog with negative experiences or irresponsible owners could show traits that have seen breeds banned under the legislation. The opposite is also true: dogs of banned breeds that are raised and cared for properly could be harmless.

In January, the Government said in their written response to the petition that repealing the legislation when there was no alternative in place was something that they were “unwilling to do” because of the increased risk to public safety. That is a somewhat lazy response. The Government have time and again stated that animal welfare is a priority for them, so why leave this legislation in place when it unnecessarily has a direct, negative impact on the welfare of certain dog breeds? Ministers have set out an ambitious legislative programme in this space in the form of the animal welfare action plan. Indeed, some of the legislation has already been passed. There is some argument that other aspects of that plan have since been watered down, but a reform of breed-specific policies through the repeal and replacement of the current legislation could be the perfect middle ground. It is not an issue that the Government should merely be ignoring.

The legislation has not reduced the number of dog bites in the UK. In fact, the number of bites continues to rise yearly. DEFRA’s own stats on the breakdown of bites by breed are notably unreliable, and there is no obligation to report dog bites. Lots of the data around dog ownership is based on estimates, and an independent report commissioned by DEFRA found that dog bite data is lacking and inconsistent. The dog control coalition asked 45 police forces for dog bite data covering the period from 2016 to 2020. Only four of the forces that provided a response could give details of the breed or type of dog involved in incidents. There just is not the evidence to prove that the legislation is effective. In fact, one could argue the opposite; an undue focus on the limited number of banned breeds has meant that we are not looking at the bigger picture.

The worst part of the legislation for me is that whether a dog is banned or not does not even come down to their breeding. The Government guidance says:

“Whether your dog is a banned type depends on what it looks like, rather than its breed or name.”

That means that dogs that are not even of a banned breed can be seized and, in many cases, euthanised based solely on a physical characteristic. To be clear, we are not just talking about aggressive dogs, or dogs that have attacked someone. These can be perfectly friendly, loving pets that someone deems to look illegal. Dogs seized under the Act will go through really traumatic experiences. Seized dogs are put into kennels for months, or even years. They are confined to small spaces and will have a much lower quality of life. Those environments can make a dog more likely to behave aggressively; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some dogs will get exemption status from the courts, having been found to be a limited threat to the public, but those dogs do not get to move on and live a normal, happy, fulfilled life. They are subject to conditions such as always wearing a muzzle outside, or always being on a lead. Often these dogs are big and energetic, and it is unfair that they will never be allowed to run around, burn some energy, and play with other dogs in the park. Muzzles can be problematic if worn for a prolonged time, and can cause discomfort and sores.

The law prohibits charities from rehoming banned dogs—or, as I say, dogs that look as though they might be of a banned breed. Regardless of the dog’s temperament or personality, they cannot go to one of the many willing and loving homes across the UK. Sadly, that means that euthanasia becomes the only option. Veterinary surgeons, staff and charity employees see huge numbers of dogs put down needlessly—dogs that would have been suitable for rehoming. It is traumatic and awful for everyone involved. It is astonishing that a 30-year-old piece of legislation that we know to be ineffective continues to be applied without scrutiny.

I thank the Scottish SPCA for its excellent briefing on this subject, and for taking the time to show me around the Lanarkshire animal rescue and rehoming centre a couple of weeks ago, where there are a lot of loving dogs looking for a new home. The Scottish SPCA’s work is incredibly important, and I completely back its “No Bad Breed” campaign, which has a petition that is nearly at the 25,000-signature mark. Anybody looking to support it should go online and find the campaign page.

This complex issue cannot be boiled down to breed. I pay tribute to Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn, who has been urging the Government to review the legislation, as it is not fit for purpose. He has done a lot of work in this area. I hope that the Minister can today acknowledge that there is work to be done on this issue and a need for reform, and can bring it forward. That would be not only in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the public, but would improve public safety in the round and prevent the unnecessary death of innocent dogs.

Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Wales has the highest poverty rates of the four parts of the state, with almost one in four people living in poverty. Worse still, Wales has the worst child poverty rates, with 31% of our children living in poverty. My party is determined to solve the crisis and to end that gross injustice through its work in the Senedd and at local level.

To give one example of our efforts, under the recent three-year agreement with the Welsh Government that I referred to in an intervention on the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), school meals will be free for all primary school children; they will be phased in from September. That is a substantial step forward. It has been an ambition of my party and the Labour party in Wales for many years. Indeed, it has been long-promised by Labour. I am glad that Plaid has made sure that we have at last acted on those fine words.

More generally, families across Wales have been failed by the Westminster welfare system, inadequate as it is in meeting the cost of living crisis. Universal credit is the main tool of support for a third of Welsh families but it is just insufficient. Nearly a third of Welsh adults in poverty are actually in work. I agree that getting into work is a good way to get out of poverty, as Conservative Members have already noted—I have no argument with that—but when wages are so low, the effect is lessened to say the least. Universal credit is just not good enough.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Citizens Advice Scotland saw a 20% increase in sanctions-related advice from March to December last year compared with the same period in 2020. The Department for Work and Pensions’ stats show that the number of people sanctioned while looking for work increased fivefold in August compared with June. Does the hon. Member agree that imposing further sanctions on those looking for work will only compound financial hardship unnecessarily?

Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

It is a valid point. Every so often, I go back through all the scare stories that have been pushed through my letterbox—mainly from the Labour party, because we do not really have a Tory presence in my constituency, or certainly not in my part of it. When we go through all the horrible things that they say will happen if Scotland becomes independent and leave them for two or three years, we find them happening anyway. It started with the closure of the naval base in Rosyth and it is still happening today with the end of freedom of movement and increasing food prices.

It is estimated that 1 million adults, equivalent to more than 3.5% of the UK population, are having to go without food at least once a month because they cannot afford to eat. About 640,000 people in Scotland cannot afford their energy bills, and that is before they got put up by 50%. That is in a country that has more energy than it needs and that, most years, exports energy to England and other countries because it cannot use all the energy it produces.

Where else in the world would we find any commodity in surplus that is, at the same time, priced beyond the affordability of its own citizens? What on earth is wrong with the way that Scotland is run that means that the people who produce almost more energy per head of population than anywhere else in the world cannot afford to pay their bills, keep their homes heated and keep their families healthy?

The Chancellor’s response is better than nothing but it is woefully inadequate. He is basically offering a payday loan: “We’ll give you the money just now to pay off your fuel bills and we’re going to hope and pray that they come back down again in the next few years.” If they do not, what on earth happens? The Scottish TUC has said that the Treasury’s buy now, pay later loan

“comes nowhere near tackling the problem…It is nothing short of shameful that people are being forced to choose between food and heat.”

If emergency loans are such a good idea to tackle the problem of increasing energy prices, why not go to the source of the problem and give them to the energy companies? They are struggling because of many global factors that have been covered in other debates. At least that way, the Government would be giving the loans to people whose shareholders should be able to meet the cost. Why give the loan to somebody who will not be able to afford to pay it back next year, the year after or the year after that?

Given that the decision has been made to give that money directly to citizens, the SNP says that it should be turned into a grant. People should not be made to choose between taking the money now and not being able to pay it back later. The Chancellor must also cut VAT on energy bills, which is within his gift. Why has he not done it?

As well as giving emergency loans to the energy companies, the Chancellor should have ruled out a rise to the energy price cap—he simply should not have allowed it, or Ofgem should not have allowed it. He could also reintroduce the £20-a-week universal credit uplift that the Tories cancelled recently. None of that by itself will solve the problem completely, but at least it would give an indication that we are dealing with a Government who care, whereas, quite clearly, we are dealing with a Government who could hardly care less.

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

Single young parents under the age of 25 face lower universal credit payments despite being the sole breadwinner for their child and despite, naturally, facing more barriers to work. Does the hon. Member agree that it is unacceptable for the Government to allow children to live in poverty based only on the age of their single mother or father?

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend—I hope that I can continue to call her a good friend and colleague—has, as always, made a very valid point.

One of the most iniquitous and downright evil things about the crisis that we are now facing is that the people who get the hardest hit will be those who are least able to afford it. If we all had to take a 20% hit to our living standards, none of us would enjoy it, but all of us would manage. Most of my constituents cannot afford to take that scale of hit to their standards of living and they are the ones who are being hit the worst.

I want to look briefly at some of the things that have been done by the Scottish Government, using their limited powers to mitigate this crisis. The Scottish Government have a much more progressive income tax system than the rest of the UK. It is often attacked by Tory Back Benchers who are interested only in the wellbeing of high earners, but the fact is that, in 2021-22, 54% of people in Scotland—the lower paid 54% of people in Scotland—are paying less income tax than they would if they lived in England. There is also fact that Members of Parliament for Scotland pay a bit more income tax than our colleagues in England. I do not mind that if the money is going into essential services.

Last year, the Scottish Government invested around £2.5 billion to support low-income households, nearly £1 billion of which went directly to children living in low-income households. They have committed more than £3.9 billion to benefit expenditure in 2022-23, providing support to more than 1 million people. That figure of £3.9 billion is £361 million above the level of funding that we get from the UK Government, so while again the Tories will demand guarantees that all of the money that comes to Scotland be used for its intended purpose, the Scottish Government are spending almost 10% more than they are receiving for that purpose.

The reaction of the Child Poverty Action Group was that this was

“a hugely welcome development on the path to meeting Scotland’s child poverty targets... a real lifeline for the families across Scotland who are facing a perfect storm of financial insecurity as the UK cut to universal credit bites, energy prices soar and the wider costs of living rise.”

It said that on 29 November 2021. The British Government did not seem to wake up to the problem until about 29 January 2022.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow—

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

We have supported the Environment Agency with additional funding of some £60 million in 2019—I think it was—and by making sure that they have the right regulatory framework in which to go forward. We are also supporting our councils, not only by equipping them with better processes and guidance in order to bring these criminals to account, but by making sure that the system is joined up so we know where the waste has been taken from, where it is going, and that it has arrived. We intend to beat this blight.

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

Fly-tipping is a blight across the UK, both in rural and in urban areas. What recent assessment has the Minister made of the need for fly-tipping to be treated as organised crime, so that investigations are properly resourced?

[Jo Churchill]

I do not think I can say any more than that it was described as similar to the narcotics industry. We need to treat fly-tipping with that much seriousness: we need to crack down and make sure that the people who are earning illegally and blighting others’ lives are hounded out of this industry.