Backbench Business

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Main. I thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for securing this important debate, and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) for her efforts. I was only too happy to support her, given that previously I have failed in several applications for a Westminster Hall debate on the same topic.

I, along with many of my SNP colleagues, have been particularly passionate about the ivory trade. Indeed, earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) tabled an early-day motion calling on the UK Government to fulfil their pledge to ban the domestic ivory trade. Although the Government’s recent announcement of a ban on non-antique ivory is welcome, I urge them to build on that and go a step further. Some would argue that the new ban is a watered-down version of the Government’s manifesto commitment to

“press for a total ban on ivory sales”,

which was itself arguably a watered-down version of the 2010 manifesto pledge not only to introduce a ban, but to press for

“the destruction of existing stockpiles”.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare warns that the demand for ivory to make decorative items, jewellery and trinkets is pushing elephants to the brink of extinction. That sobering fact is reason in itself to show the trade zero tolerance. Although the IFAW welcomes the partial ban as a

“positive step in the right direction”,

it is continuing to urge the Government to introduce a total ban on domestic ivory sales, as it believes that such a measure is vital to help to shut down the markets in the UK. Most people will be unaware of this fact, but the UK actually has the largest legal domestic ivory market in Europe. Information obtained from the Border Force and the Metropolitan police indicates that the UK is home to a significant illegal market. Furthermore—the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) referred to this briefly—there is evidence to suggest that some traders attempt to stain or disguise newer items in order to pass them off as antiques. It is for that very reason that a total ban is imperative.

The ban on the sale of worked ivory produced after 1947, although welcome, still enables a rogue trade in such items. It is simply not effective enough. A total ban is required if we are truly to stamp out the trade. The other effect of a total ban would be to make ivory undesirable and socially unacceptable. Ivory should not be viewed as a commodity, and should have absolutely zero monetary value. The real cost of ivory is the extinction of elephants from our planet. Too many elephants suffer horrific deaths that are totally needless. It is important to put a number to that. We are not talking about a handful of elephants here; we are looking at around 100,000 over the past three years. If more people understood the sheer scale of the trade, I am sure there would be greater public uproar.

The UK should be leading the way and providing an example to the rest of the world. Time is running short for elephants. We need to see further action from the Government, building on the work already done. I would like to see the Government undertake a consultation on how to close the ivory market, looking at our domestic and international obligations. The ban needs to be strengthened to fulfil properly the Conservative manifesto commitment to ban the domestic trade. That must include ending the sale of pre-1947 ivory. I look forward to the Government’s response to the points raised today, and thank the Minister for her consideration of this matter.

Equine Slaughterhouses (CCTV)

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It would indeed seem that if CCTV were present, we should be making full use of it. This is another aspect—given that CCTV itself is not compulsory—that should be mandatory; there should be access to the footage gained through those means.

It is important to emphasise that although we are having this debate today, that does not in any way presume that there is poor treatment in the UK’s five equine slaughterhouses, all of which also take species other than horses. However, horse owners have not forgotten that incident from 2013. A Facebook survey carried out by World Horse Welfare in September provided some interesting insights. Around 90% of more than 900 horse owners who responded did not consider the abattoir as an option for their horse, but 40% agreed that horse slaughter should remain an option within the UK as the costs of euthanasia are so high. More than 70% said that they would not use a slaughterhouse for their own horses because they did not have confidence that their welfare would be protected through the process or that the horse would have a humane death.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I am unsure whether hon. Members are aware of this, but there are no abattoirs in Scotland licensed for the slaughter of horses. None the less, the wider issue of animal welfare at abattoirs is important to many people north of the border. At the SNP conference in the autumn—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech. Her intervention should be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier]

I am coming to my question—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady sit down when she is being brought to order? “I am coming to my question” is not an adequate response. She is taking too much time from the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). She should ask a brief question.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Does the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) agree that the provision of CCTV is vital in ensuring that animals are protected prior to their slaughter?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Driven Grouse Shooting

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Coffey]

With respect to the hon. Lady, I have less time than the shadow Front Bencher took, so I will try to get through the points. If there is any chance I can take an intervention at the end, I will. On moorland management and the evidence of non-compliance on burning, if the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) can share that with me, I will share that with Natural England.

The issue of agri-environment funding has been raised. I expect we will continue to support our environment once we have left the EU and that, in the meantime, payments will be made to support environmentally beneficial land management, including the management of specific wildlife habitats, and works to improve the quality of the environment for wildlife, water quality and carbon capture.

As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), the uplands have complex land ownership and tenure arrangements, with many areas designated as common land. Many agreements result in funding going to grazing tenancies, which are critical to undertaking the beneficial management of the moors. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bristol East, who suggested that grouse shooting has been subsidised. I want to make it clear that agri-environment payments are not subsidies and they are not paid to support shooting activities.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I am afraid I will not give way to the hon. Lady, who was not here at the start of the debate.

Grouse moors contain a range of habitats that require different management methods. Rotational burning is considered to help to maintain healthy heather on the moors at different heights. Short heather provides food for sheep and red grouse and shelter for some ground-nesting birds. Tall heather provides shelter and nesting for other birds. The tapestry, if not the kaleidoscope, of heather plants at different stages of regeneration is achieved by rotational burning, and was cited as key to the success of the Glenwherry project that was referred to by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan). My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) referred to the successful preservation of black grouse in north Wales.

Burning takes place over winter and early spring when there are no birds nesting and the soil is wet. I understand that the peat itself is not deliberately burned and that there is a strong presumption against rotational burning on sensitive areas such as blanket bog, as noted in the heather and grass burning code, which recommends the cool burns that several hon. Members referred to earlier. Natural England’s consent is required to burn on a site of special scientific interest. I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on alternatives and a reduction in burning. Heather could be cut as an alternative to burning, but that can be achieved only on suitable topography, and it may leave highly combustible material behind if not removed. He will know that several fires have been accidentally triggered. They have taken much resource to tackle and left damaged habitats that have taken years to recover.

A DEFRA-funded project is currently looking into the costs and effects of cutting as an alternative. I know the benefits of peat restoration for absorbing water, but, to be clear—I will cover this again—we know that upland peat is vital for filtering our drinking water, of which 70% comes from the uplands. We are committed to restoring and protecting that upland peat.

The 2013 Natural England study on the effects of managed burning found no direct evidence specifically relating to the effect of burning on watercourse flow or the risk of downstream flood events. It is the study to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) talked about cod science; I thought he was in a fishing debate. However, he rightly referred to the sustained rainfall that was the decisive factor in the unprecedented flooding in modern times, and he challenged the selective use of statistics from reports. He gave us some interesting analogies to do with bull elephants. I heard an analogy the other day about the River Wear in the north-east, which suffered flooding last year: something the size of the Royal Albert Hall would have been filled full of water in less than a minute, such was the torrent suffered in the north-east.

Drainage damages blanket bog, and Natural England does not consent to constructing drainage ditches on blanket bog in SSSIs. Grouse moor owners and other stakeholders are currently carrying out programmes of ditch blocking across the country, helping to restore peat condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley referred to the levels of reservoirs, which takes me to another debate. Perhaps he might apply for another debate another time. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) referred to continuing funding for the York University study. No decision has yet been made, but I note her concerns on that matter.

On the “bogathon” milestones, I must admit I did not know about them; I will look into them. My officials assure me that stakeholders are carrying out valuable work to look at ways of restoring peat, including through the “bogathon” events. We are committed to working with moor owners and stakeholders through the blanket bog restoration strategy.

Snares

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) on making a very strong case in support of the motion? I am usually pleased to follow the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). He was making an argument, but sadly he ran out of time and we did not get to hear whether his case was as strong as that made by my hon. Friend. It certainly did not appear to be from where I am sitting.

I thank the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union for their briefings for this debate, and I especially thank Nikki Sutherland and Oliver Bennett from the Library for their very useful briefing to Members.

The RSPCA writes:

“In 2005, Defra introduced a Code of Practice on the use of snares. The Code sets out best practice in the use of snares, including guidance on where and how to set snares for different species and possible steps to take to avoid trapping ‘non-target’ species. It should be noted that compliance with the Code is voluntary and a 2012 report produced for Defra found that although awareness of the Code was very high (eg 95% of gamekeepers and 65% of farmers) the levels of compliance with the best practice it contains was very low.”

That was one of the strong arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge.

The League Against Cruel Sports writes:

“The League believes that snaring is terribly cruel, indiscriminate and wholly unnecessary and leads to untold suffering and horrific deaths for wild, domestic and farm animals throughout the country…Most snares are used by gamekeepers to protect quarry, which are bred and protected to act as targets for blood sports.”

That is not the same as the farmer argument that we have heard previously.

I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for not welcoming her to her new position when I opened my speech. I did not get a chance to do so during yesterday’s sitting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, because I was not there for all of her evidence, but I wish her success in her new job. Will she respond to the point made by the League Against Cruel Sports that most snares are set by gamekeepers, not farmers?

The League Against Cruel Sports states that the 2012 DEFRA report on snaring

“confirms that it is not possible for snares to be species specific and that non-target animals are still captured, even when the code of conduct is strictly adhered to…It is not possible to regulate the use of snares through a non-statutory code, as adherence to the code is low and there is no incentive for operators to obey it…It is clear that due to the cruel, unnecessary and indiscriminate nature of snares, primary legislation is the only viable option to ban their use.”

Will the Minister comment on that?

Not surprisingly, the NFU—an organisation for which I have high regard—says that

“the use of snares for fox and rabbit control is an essential part of wildlife and conservation management,”

and that

“in certain situations they can be the most humane method of pest control.”

As my hon. Friend has said, however, this issue is not so much about control and then humane destruction, but about animals dying in snares and not being dispatched as humanely as everyone would want them to be.

The Library briefing states:

“Snares are commonly used in the UK to catch certain animals prior to their killing. They can be legally used, subject to certain conditions, to catch animals including foxes, rabbits, rats and grey squirrels.

While snares can restrain animals without causing injury, they have the potential to cause injury and death”,

as my hon. Friend has said. The briefing also repeats another point that he made:

“They can also catch non-target animals such as badgers and cats. Their use is therefore controversial.”

To save time, I will not refer to the additional regulations for Wales and Northern Ireland, because my hon. Friend has covered those, but the briefing goes on to note:

“In recent years Scotland has tightened regulations on snares beyond the situation in England and Wales. Snares must have safety stops fitted and users are required by law to now attend a training course and register for a personal identification number. This ID number is required to be displayed on all snares which are set.”

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

Snare users in Scotland are required to have approved accreditation and must receive a personal identification number from the police, so snaring without an ID number is an illegal activity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that prudent measure should be implemented south of the border?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge has also made that case, although obviously we would prefer a complete ban on these things. It has been demonstrated by the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Government that improvements can be made to the present situation in England and Wales. I am certainly impressed by the fact that each snare has to have an ID number and that, where it can be proven that snares are not being used in the way in which people have been trained to use them, the number can be used to trace the person involved. That is an additional safeguard.

In conclusion, my hon. Friend has made a very strong argument for a complete ban on snares. Even if the Government do not accept that argument, there is also a very strong case, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and I have just agreed, to amend regulations in England. Internationally, we appear to be in a small minority of countries. Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have all seen fit to move on this issue, and I hope the Government will tell us that they agree with the devolved Assemblies, and that they will improve the situation and move towards, I hope, a full ban. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. A good example of my own efforts to improve the use of UK steel has been to urge the Offshore Wind Industry Council to do more to promote UK content. The UK is one of the biggest deployers of offshore wind to date and we can certainly hope that, once we start building our export markets, British steel will form a part of those exports.

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

The Minister will be aware that the two Liberty steel plants, including Clydebridge in my constituency, will be heavily involved in the supply of turbine casings for tidal lagoon projects and tubular steel structures for offshore wind turbines. The renewables industry can provide a huge market for steel produced in Britain, which represents a huge opportunity for British businesses. Will the Minister commit to revisiting the Government’s approach to the subsidy of such renewables?

[Andrea Leadsom]

On the subsidies for renewables, we have made it clear that we must balance the need to keep costs down for consumers with the need of new technologies to be subsidised in order to deploy and keep their costs down. On offshore wind, we have made it clear that we see huge potential for the cost trajectory to go down. The offshore wind industry already has a target of 50% UK content, and I am certainly encouraging it to be more ambitious. That would absolutely include the use of British steel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

We are looking closely at what Australia and France are doing. We have been working on a common EU-US position in order to change practices in Africa. It makes a huge difference that we do this together as 700 million people in the EU and the US rather than trying to do it individually.

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

Following the EU referendum vote, we have no idea how the EU action plan against wildlife trafficking will be implemented by the UK Government. Is the Minister in a position to provide any assurances to the House today?

[Rory Stewart]

As my colleague the Minister of State has pointed out, the details of our position in relation to Europe will have to be determined by a future Prime Minister, but we played a very active role in drafting that plan and pushing for its contents. The hon. Lady will see in what we are doing in Vietnam our commitment to that plan. I reassure her that, certainly as long as I am in this position, the UK’s position is absolutely unequivocal.

--- Later in debate ---

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

In advance of the Scottish independence referendum, the Government published “Scotland’s Future”—a comprehensive White Paper and blueprint for how the transition to independence would be managed. The complete lack of a coherent plan from the leave campaign and the chaos that has ensued has highlighted a huge disparity. What is the Government’s position on manifestos for referendums?

[Mr Streeter]

Certainly, prior to 9 September, I do not speak for the Government, and therefore it is not a matter for the Electoral Commission.

Dog Fighting

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing the debate.

For the second time in a little over three weeks, I find myself in this room yet again providing a voice for the voiceless. Many of my constituents and staff have a keen interest in the treatment of man’s best friend. Unfortunately, the subject of the debate is troubling. As I am sure all hon. Members agree, the images and testimonies that are readily accessible online can only be described as harrowing.

The debate comes in the same week that, unfortunately and absurdly, 6,000 miles away in China, the annual Yulin dogmeat festival is taking place. The event was only launched in 2010 but has, unsurprisingly, garnered worldwide condemnation. We must be thankful that the international community has wholly rejected that so-called festival. However, we cannot be complacent about animal welfare on our own shores.

The problem of dog fighting is rife in the west of Scotland, and has been for years. The League Against Cruel Sports’ “Project Bloodline” report indicates that this abhorrent practice has had a major resurgence over the past few months. The report says that we need to educate the public about the scope and signs of dog fighting. According to the document:

“Greater understanding of the problem will lead to increased intelligence and more opportunities to prevent fights happening.”

We must ensure that dog fighting is portrayed not only as a rural problem but as one that is also found in urban areas. Will the Minister tell us explicitly how he plans to further tackle the issue rurally and in urban areas? No one here will disagree that dog fighting is a barbaric and cruel practice that is on a par with torturing animals. We must ensure that all relevant legislation is correctly implemented and possibly extended.

I am sure the Minister agrees that dog fighting is brutal and is no form of entertainment. From the stories that I have read and the evidence produced by the League Against Cruel Sports, it seems that one of the main methods used to facilitate the dog-fighting business is the selling of dogs online. What will the Minister do in conjunction with the police to tackle that growing online problem? Does he agree that dogs should be rehomed using renowned dog charities? I would much rather debate positive stories about dogs, but this is the world we live in.

I end with a quote from one of the earliest proponents of the animal rights movement, Jeremy Bentham, who said that

“the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

Of course animals suffer, and when they do, we, in turn, suffer. We must continue to fight for them until their voice is heard.

Welfare of Young Dogs Bred for Sale

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I might “litter” my speech with a few dog puns, but if you think any of them are a bit “ruff”, I will understand if you have to “paws” the proceedings to “collar” me.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this important debate. It is often said that the UK is a nation of dog lovers, although the pedant in me would point out that we are four nations. That is salient, as it is important to bear it in mind that these animal welfare matters are devolved. Although my speech today is made in London, the points that I raise are just as pertinent in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast.

I think that the scale of the problems associated with the breeding and trade of young puppies would shock most people. The RSPCA estimates that anywhere between 700,000 and 1.9 million puppies are sold each year in the UK. About 60,000 puppies are imported, as we have heard, from other European countries. Only 70,000 puppies are born to licensed British breeders. That massive shift in how the industry operates has it operating much more like an industry, and anyone who has ever taken on the responsibility of raising a pup will understand why that is so damaging.

In the first eight weeks of life, a pup needs to be mentored by its mother and, in playing with littermates, will learn important lessons in behaviour and interaction. Those few formative weeks are crucial for a pup to grow up balanced, confident and healthy. Unfortunately, many of the puppies mass-bred and reared purely for profit are denied that, and disease is an inevitable consequence. There are major issues, too, with the import of puppies, as we have heard. However, not all people who sell puppies are irresponsible. I acknowledge that there are many very capable, principled and accountable sellers and breeders.

There are simple things that prospective puppy purchasers can do to ensure that they are not, as it were, being sold a pup. They should always see a pup with its mother. They should ensure that it is not being sold when it is younger than eight weeks old, and it is important that they understand what they are letting themselves in for and educate themselves about the animal’s welfare needs. Most important, they should not buy a pet on impulse; it is a serious commitment.

I know that the UK Government are consulting at the moment. I hope to see serious consideration given to restrictions and regulations to address the issues discussed today, and I hope to see similar action from the devolved Administrations. There is a great need for the nations to work together to tackle the trade and to ensure that rogue dealers are not able to evade the law by crossing a border. I would like the Minister and the responsible Ministers in the devolved Administrations to give serious consideration to measures that could ensure that puppy welfare improves across the UK.

The licensing of puppy sellers and breeders needs to be looked into closely and there needs to be greater surveillance at ports to catch and prosecute puppy smugglers. Many measures can be taken, and a far-reaching consultation involving key animal rights and welfare charities will highlight many others. I thank hon. Members for taking the time to listen to my contribution. If they will permit one last dog pun, I will tail off my speech now.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. We should take the most cautious approach we can in looking after not only bees, but other pollinators. The International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates that nearly 10% of bee species are under threat. The intensification of agriculture and seasonal crops have reduced food for bees, creating an ongoing problem.

Neonicotinoids are thought to transfer chemicals through crop growth to various pollinators. Protection for bees, and encouragement for a friendly environment, should be something we are all concerned about. However, the Government caused outrage in July, when they lifted the EU ban for 120 days. They now say they will follow the best advice. The background is that there are concerns about the efficiency of DEFRA-funded trials. That message is too weak to allay citizens’ concerns about bees.

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

I hope my hon. Friend agrees that that is why it is critical that we proceed with caution. On the use of neonics, the Scottish Government have taken a cautious, evidence-based approach, as they do on many issues. They take the view that if the science is not clear, there is a need for further research. Scotland’s current position complies with EU legislation, which does not allow the three neonics to be used on crops, especially ones with flowers that are attractive to bees.

[Drew Hendry]

I thank my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Scottish Government view is that the EU does not allow the three neonicotinoids to be used on crops attractive to bees.

Bees and pollinating insects are vital to our health, wellbeing and future. The pesticides we are talking about are rightly banned in the EU while full scientific tests are carried out to see whether they are harmful. The decision by the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary, Richard Lochhead, that they will not support any relaxation of restrictions unless there is clear evidence that neonicotinoids pose no threat to those species is the right way to proceed. I hope the Minister will come back with some strong measures to back up the Scottish Government’s approach.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Happy birthday to you. I thank all the people who secured the debate by public petition; I believe their number sits at 90,000 at the moment—that is quite a lot of people who are interested in bees. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for bringing this debate forward. There have been a lot of good contributions. If you will indulge me, Ms Vaz, I will make some observations.

Although we are not in full possession of all the facts, we have to tread carefully. Mankind has a poor track record when it comes to environmental and ecological protection, and the loss of pollinators from the ecosystem and the knock-on effects of that on the food chain should cause serious alarm. That has serious implications. In a world with an ever-increasing population, we must forward-plan to ensure the challenges of tomorrow are not realised in hindsight. Significant changes must be made to how we live on the planet if we are not only to survive but thrive.

We need to recognise that we may not be fully aware of the effects of neonics on humans. Bread sold in the UK has been tested and shown to contain pesticide residues in 60% of cases—three out of every five loaves, which is utterly astonishing. The potential health impacts concern me greatly. The American National Institutes of Health finished a landmark 20-year study last year, which indicated that seven pesticides—some of which are very widely used—may be causing clinical depression in farmers. The study showed a significant correlation between depression and the pesticides studied.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

While the human population is increasing, the bee population is plummeting. Does the hon. Lady agree that the continued use of neonics will not allow the bee population to recover? My constituents in Neath—a beautiful rural area, made for bees—and the West Glamorgan Beekeepers Association are very concerned about that.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I concur with the hon. Lady and take her point on board.

We simply do not know the long-term effects of these toxins on our bodies. We must recognise the other measures that need to be taken in order to plan for the future. We have heard that bee numbers are rapidly dropping. We heard from the hon. Member for Bath that neonicotinoids have been banned in countries such as France, Germany and Slovenia, to name a few. We would be here until half-past 7 tomorrow evening if I went through all the excellent interventions there have been today. We heard about the 34% drop in the honey crop and about queen issues in the hives.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

My constituents have been writing to me about the worrying decline in the honeybee population. One thing they have raised is whether we should have more programmes explicitly designed to improve the situation. Two of the initiatives mentioned, which are bolder than the ones we have at the moment, are the healthy bees plan and the insect pollinators initiative. Both were agreed under the previous Labour Administration. Does the hon. Lady agree that such programmes need to be put in place, and that we should work in a cross-party way to urge the Government to do so?

[Margaret Ferrier]

I am sure the Minister will answer that question when he sums up. Today’s debate has proved that many Members are interested in bees, and we want to work in a cross-party way. I am glad to see that the APPG has been set up, and I will be joining it.

Like the hon. Member for Bath, I am not an expert on bees, but we all wish to learn about this issue. As the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) said, the issue is about education—educating ourselves and young people in schools. We have heard throughout the debate that the moratorium should stay in place. Farms and farmers need more information from Government. One question raised was about the best time to spray crops, which can perhaps be answered.

This is an international and European Union issue. We need a varied response from the UK Government. We need to look at the scientific research and do more research. We heard that we need an open, transparent, evidence-based approach and that we must interrogate the evidence in turn. It is clear that lots of MPs have attended this debate because of the amount of lobbying they have received.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) made the point that this issue is not just rural but urban as well. We need to look at environmental resilience and climate change—the bigger picture—and at the length of time that pesticides are exposed in the air and around crops. There are alternatives, but the issue is all about evidence and building an evidence base. We heard that 20 species of bees have already been lost because of habitat change and climate change, so we need to look at that. As I mentioned, in Scotland we have a ban in place, and we have to keep that. It is too soon for a decision, but we need to take a science-based approach. The situation is still confusing and a few people are saying that the UK Government are still not listening on this complex issue.

One of the best interventions we heard was from the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who said that bees were the gift that keeps on giving to parliamentarians. It is also important to keep the stewardship schemes in place in rural areas. We may need to pollinate crops if we lose bees.

The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said that we cannot take risks and looked back to the ’80s and the effects of sheep dip on human health. There are issues to do with people’s health, so we need to be very careful. We heard from her that bees spend longer foraging, but are not as effective, and how that has impacted on apple trees. Interestingly, she said that bees’ memories were being affected and asked whether neonicotinoids were why. Again, it all comes back to us wanting to produce food in a healthy fashion and to take an evidence-based approach.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) mentioned that he had had a hive in his bedroom, which was very interesting to hear. Perhaps he could get involved in the APPG in Parliament as well. The hon. Member for South Antrim mentioned that we need to look at the joint Irish approach. He said that we should not take risks and that we should take decisions once we know enough. He added that we should all learn together and work together to find out more.

I would like a couple of questions to be answered. Will the UK Government undertake to adopt the same sensible, cautious, evidence-based approach shown by the Scottish Government? Will the Minister also address some of the concerns raised, such as the suggested link between pesticides and depression? Everybody has contributed fully to the debate today. It has been great. All constituents and the people who have signed the petition will see that we are taking their concerns forward.

Food Waste

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today and I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for tabling this important debate on what I consider to be a principal concern in relation to one of the most important global issues facing us. The amount of food wasted each year worldwide is staggering: about one third of all food—approximately 1.3 billion tonnes—is discarded each year. Last year, the House of Lords carried out an inquiry into the cost of food waste across the EU and found that an estimated 89 million tonnes of food are wasted every year. Furthermore, it reported that that figure is set to rise sharply if action is not taken.

In the UK alone, it is estimated that households throw away 6.7 million tonnes of food per annum. Worldwide, food wastage is a major problem, as the hon. Member for Bristol East has said, with significant costs for the environment, the economy and society. Something is hugely wrong with our food distribution system if a third of food is wasted globally, but nearly 1 billion people across the planet go hungry.

The UK is by far the worst food wastage offender in the EU, as the hon. Member for Bristol East has pointed out. We should be deeply ashamed of that, and we should seek to remedy it. With food poverty becoming a huge problem, the redistribution of waste food should be a priority. I was pleased to learn last week about Tesco’s trial partnership with FareShare, through which it could hand tens of thousands of tonnes of surplus food from its stores to local charities. The scheme has already proven to be quite successful for Tesco in the Republic of Ireland, and I hope that we can look forward eventually to a UK-wide roll-out across all Tesco stores.

Although such corporate responsibility is to be commended, we as legislators have an obligation to fix our broken supply chain. The French National Assembly voted last month in favour of a Bill that will start to redress the food distribution system using waste food from supermarkets. The rare cross-party consensus surrounding the legislation demonstrates the importance and urgency of tackling food waste. Hunger and climate change should not be partisan issues. As elected Members of this House we have a moral duty to work together to address them, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

Last week, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) tabled an early-day motion that called on the Government to introduce legislation to ban supermarkets from throwing away food that is approaching its best before date, and instead to make it available to charities and food banks. I was pleased not only to support the motion but to table an amendment, which called on the UK Government to engage with the Scottish Government on food waste.

Scotland produces enough food waste each year to fill 42,000 double-decker buses, and each household wastes, on average, £470 per annum on food that they throw away. The Scottish Government have set ambitious environmental targets for reducing CO₂ emissions and reducing the amount of general waste that goes to landfill. The 2010 zero-waste plan is designed to promote sustainability, and the aim is for a maximum of 5% of waste to go to landfill by 2025. The strategy is implemented by Zero Waste Scotland, which is funded by the Government. One of its six key aims is to transform attitudes to food waste.

In my constituency, the local authority trialled a domestic food waste collection in the Drumsagard area in 2011. Such was the success of the trial that the programme was widened to incorporate many more homes in the wider Rutherglen and Cambuslang area, which, in common with every local authority, has a statutory obligation to provide a separate food waste collection service. Starting this month, some 133,000 households will be issued with a free small food waste caddy for use in their kitchens. That is an important measure, because the high cost to consumers of food recycling is widely seen to be prohibitive. The Scottish Government support the changes, and our climate change Minister last week announced that an additional £5 million will be made available over the next two years to help councils to roll out food waste collection schemes to homes across Scotland. Perhaps the Minister could take that on board for the whole UK.

Just across the boundary of my constituency, in Blantyre, a local company is helping to divert food from landfill back into the ecosystem. GP Plantscape now processes some 50,000 tonnes of food and garden waste at its in-vessel composting facility every year. That results in a nutritious compost, cuts down on landfill waste and helps to save the peatlands by offering a viable alternative product.

Hon. Members have not yet mentioned restaurants. The Scottish Government realise that small changes made by individuals can have a huge impact. Not only is Zero Waste Scotland keen to educate people about shopping smarter, making meal plans and using leftovers efficiently, but it has trialled innovative programmes such as the “good to go” scheme, in which restaurant customers took home their uneaten food.

The so-called doggy bag pilot last year was so successful that it is now being extended. The restaurants involved saw dramatic reductions in food waste, and it has been estimated that if restaurants across Scotland routinely offered customers doggy bags, the equivalent of 800,000 full meals could be saved from the bin every year. A lot more can still be done to divert food from landfill, and encouraging better consumption habits and widening access to food waste recycling are only part of a wider strategy. We have a responsibility, as legislators and as human beings, to do more.

We have to dare to be bold and innovative about how we approach food growing, harvesting, storage, distribution and disposal. As the world population continues to grow and demand for resources increases, food security will pose an ever greater problem. The hon. Member for Bristol East spoke about how we can deal with that. Changing deeply ingrained public attitudes is not an easy or quick process, but the action we take now will determine the legacy that we leave to the next generation.

These islands are wealthy, and the widespread explosion in food bank use should shame us all. In the last year alone, the Trussell Trust supplied more than 1 million people with emergency food support. In contrast, it supplied only 40,000 people over the same period five years ago. Food banks address a symptom of the problem, but it is incumbent on us all to address the causes. Much remains to be done to tackle the challenges that we face.

Food redistribution has traditionally faced a number of barriers. If we are really serious about tackling the problem that we face, we must work proactively with all the relevant outside organisations to effect change. As has been mentioned, one factor that has deterred businesses from donating food is the risk that they will be held legally liable in case of illness. We must find ways to protect and support those who donate food in good faith. In particular, we must support small businesses, which might otherwise find the implementation of a food waste strategy to be prohibitive. I would like us to legislate to divert food waste from landfill to those who are in need, and to ensure that sending waste to landfill is neither easier nor more economical for retailers.

We must look at how food loss and waste can be reduced at every stage of the food chain, and we must work together to address the food poverty crisis on these islands. There is much on which we can co-operate, and no doubt there is much that we can learn from one another. I enjoyed hearing from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the initiatives in that city—especially the story about the chocolate, which sounded really good. The shipping container café is also a great idea. In addition, we have not spoken a great deal about how food waste could help elderly people. No doubt, there is much we can learn from one another to help us tackle the problem at a household, local and UK level. I support calls for legislation on food redistribution, and I implore other Members of the House to do likewise.