Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

We are in a new world, which is not about securing duties because we are worried about what we might get from the European Union. We have to embrace self-government and take responsibility for designing the schemes. As a Government, we have set out exactly what we intend to do through the policy paper that we published alongside the Bill. I therefore believe that amendment 44 is unnecessary.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not agree that “must” is a stronger word than “may”? He talks about taking back power and government. We are talking about how it looks to agricultural communities outwith this place. The word “must”, which I agree does not define how much money will be paid, but requires that it be addressed, would surely put agricultural communities in a stronger, more confident position than “may”, which leaves it all up in the air.

[George Eustice]

Ultimately, reassurance is given to people in the farming industry, and others with an interest in the farmed landscape, through manifesto commitments and Government commitments. We have a commitment to keep the agricultural budget at the current level until at least 2022. We also have a manifesto commitment to roll out a new scheme to replace the current basic payment scheme, and the Bill sets out a transition period that implies an ongoing budget well into the future. That is what gives farmers the reassurance that they need, not sophistry about whether we should have the word “must” or “may”. I respectfully suggest that we should pursue the approach to drafting that we have always had, that has stood the test of time and that worked wonderfully well in the 1947 Act and in other Labour Acts since, and accept that “may” is the correct terminology to use, as a point of legal drafting.

I will touch briefly on amendment 45, which is linked, and which the hon. Member for Stroud also addressed. The amendment creates a requirement through changing the word “may” to “must”, converting a power to make provisions for enforcement on issues such as eligibility into a requirement. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think it is necessary. We have in this country well established procedures that put enormous scrutiny on the spending of public money. We have the National Audit Office, and codes of governance within the civil service and the Cabinet Office. We have very detailed procedures in place to ensure that we check eligibility and look after public money.

Say we were to introduce a scheme and have no type of enforcement or eligibility checking whatever—literally handing out money. As all hon. Members know, it would not be long before we had National Audit Office reports, Public Accounts Committee hearings and accounting officer issues from within the civil service. The reality is that converting the power into a requirement is unnecessary in the context of all the other requirements that we already make on Government. What we seek in this power and in the Bill—what we need in the Bill—is simply a power to be able to introduce those checks.

I hope that I have been able to give the hon. Member for Stroud reassurance. I hope he will accept the approach taken by previous Labour Governments in such areas and also that the existing drafting—using “may”—is entirely consistent with the past. I hope that he will withdraw both amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

There was an audible exhalation of breath there.

I suggest to the Minister, however, that this issue is likely to come back as an amendment in the other place and that we are likely to debate it on Report. I therefore make this point gently to my hon. Friend: the environment—not in the green sense of the term, but the political environment—and the circumstances in 1947 were very different from now with respect to the understanding of the importance and the appreciation of the need to have a vibrant agricultural sector. One can attribute all sorts of reasons for that, but it happens to be a fairly basic statement of fact.

I hear what the Minister says about the historical precedent, but I am not certain that changing “may” to “must” fundamentally weakens or alters the Bill. I think it would strengthen his elbow. Unfortunately, he will have successors in due course, as will the Secretary of State. He and the Secretary of State both have a very clear commitment to a strong agricultural cycle; I think that is beyond debate.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is there not more certainty in amending “may” to “must” than perhaps we would find in manifestos past, present and possibly future?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me down a path of debate that, without pre-judging your intervention Mr Wilson, I am pretty certain is likely to be ruled out of order. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not venture down the tantalising sylvan glade of a debate about the language used in manifestos.

The point I want to make is that the commitment to UK agriculture of the current DEFRA team is beyond peradventure, but that is not a safeguard that we can bank forever and a day. I do not say this as a party point, because I think Labour Members would agree that currently the Labour party is a more urban party than the Conservative party, but that could easily change. One could easily see a debate turning round, saying, “Hang on a moment—that lot did not give a huge amount of support to coal or steel or any other heavy industry. Why should we, as an urban party, support something that is predominantly rural and possibly Tory-voting?” The amendment would take away the temptation for more urbancentric politicians to turn their face against agriculture.

The amendment also might strengthen future DEFRA teams in debates with the Treasury, because the agricultural sector and population are smaller than the urban ones. They are possibly less powerful in a lobby of the body politic. In a difficult spending round when money is tight, as it will be in future years, to be able to say to the Treasury, “This is not an add-on or a nice-to-have. It is an imperative enshrined in statute law and I, as the Secretary of State, must have policies to deliver the things set out in section 1 of a future Act”, will—at a stroke—shoot the fox of a hawkish future Treasury Minister, who is trying to clamp down on public expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The point I am trying to make is that it is very difficult to define enhanced soil health. Unlike animal health, where it is very easy to see whether an animal is healthy or not, there are a number of objectives, for example, looking at organic matter in the soil and the use of slurries.

Although many would wish to take measures to improve the organic matter in soils, there are downsides, particularly looking at nitrates. The Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, looked at nitrates in water and soils. Many of the problems with high levels of nitrates, which can lead to eutrophication in watercourses and the sea, in some cases, are due to high nutrient and nitrate levels being applied to the soil, which can be associated with organic fertilisers. My view is that this is an unnecessary amendment.

Soil health is best left to farmers. If we can create the situation where farmers manage their farms correctly, they will enhance soil health in those areas where they wish to maximise production but they might deliberately degrade soil health in order to encourage species that thrive in waterlogged, acidic and other soils. Although I can understand the motives behind the amendment, I do not believe it would achieve the intended objectives.

[Martin Whitfield]

First, I should point out that I have recently been elected chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the timber industries. I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East. The quality of soil sits at the foundation of farming and agriculture.

I listened to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, but I think he reads too much into the amendment. At the end of the day, we are looking for an improvement in the health of the soil in the area where it is found; there is no intention to overdo the moor lands into high-growth, high-productivity areas. That may well not be a measure of soil health within an area. With great respect, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is reading far too much into the intention behind the amendment.

On the nature of the Bill and the word “may”, it will always rest with the Secretary of State whether financial support would be given. The health of the soil was raised in the evidence session by a significant number of people, and it sits at the foundation of farming. There is a need to ensure that the soil that we pass on to those who come after us is in the best condition that the farmer feels is right for his land. Farmers are the experts, but to rely solely on the farmer, without being able to give support where necessary, would remove the need for the Bill. There is a requirement for the Bill, however, and for farmers in some areas to have support.

One thing the Minister should address is the health and quality of the soil and what the soil is doing. In my constituency of East Lothian, we are blessed with very fertile volcanic soil and the production rates are phenomenal. They are dealt with and handled with great care and expertise by the farmers. In other areas of Scotland and the UK, however, the soil quality is much lower. That needs to be addressed, and the farmers who work the land, whether for sheep or for culture, require support to do that. Soil plays a greater role than as simply the material out of which crops are grown. The carbon capture element is fundamental to the calculations that need to be made.

Amendment 72 would make a small change, but a significant one. It would place in the Bill the material that is most fundamental to agriculture: soil.

Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Colin Clark]

Q I have a question for Mr Clarke: would you welcome an amendment to the Bill to deal with the meat levy with regard to Scotland?

Alan Clarke: The meat levy has been a major issue not only in Scotland, but in Wales. For a number of years—probably from time immemorial—animals have always moved around the UK. Our figures identify that the leakage from Scotland of animals that are born and reared there but then processed in England means that about £2 million of levy money that should be Scottish is trapped in England. On average, 75% of that comes from producers and 25% from processors, so even if the producer levy could be repatriated to Scotland, it would still be a figure in the region of £1.5 million.

A lot of work has been done behind the scenes on this. The Scottish Government in particular have been leading on it and trying to put some of the processes and procedures in place that could help with it. We have an interim solution at the moment, which is called the ring-fenced fund. The ring-fenced fund is £2 million of levy collected in England by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. It has to be ring-fenced and used for the benefit of levy payers in England, Scotland and Wales. If we look just at having an equitable part of that £2 million, in theory £666,000 could be valued to Scotland, to Wales and to England respectively. In reality, the money does not change hands.

That is only part of the issue. We would very much welcome a long-term solution that had the opportunity to look at the size of the issue; as I say, Scotland on its own is a minimum of £1.5 million annually.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Q Just to pursue that point regarding the red meat levy, it is my understanding that to make the amendments you need a piece of primary legislation. Has there been any primary legislation since, shall we say, 2006? That was not the start of the challenges with the levy, but certainly problems date from then. Has there been any opportunity to change it until the Bill that is before the Committee?

Alan Clarke: I joined Quality Meat Scotland 16 months ago, so I came in during part of this. It has been an issue for many years. We have a real example of the three levy bodies—QMS, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, and Hybu Cig Cymru, or Meat Promotion Wales—working together really well, this year in particular. We are working on a range of projects. I have just come back from SIAL—Salon International de l’Alimentation, or Global Food Marketplace—in Paris, where we have been exhibiting together on joint stands. We are doing market access work. We have just signed off a £500,000 programme to promote the benefits of red meat in England, Scotland and Wales.

There is certainly evidence that we can work together, but it is not the long-term solution that we need. I am comfortable saying that in the long term the three levy bodies will continue to work on pre-competitive issues, but at the moment we do not have full control over all that money. Approximately 34% of the money is coming back to Scotland at the moment. There is now a real opportunity. The Bill is here, and the engine is running, to quote Jonnie, so let us get on with it.

[Martin Whitfield]

Q One more point to you, Mr Hall. Do you have any concerns about the fact that the Bill discusses the environment very heavily? Would you like to see it scope wider and talk about farms and food, and give equal emphasis to all?

Jonnie Hall: Certainly from NFU Scotland’s point of view, we would echo the views that you probably heard from the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, on Tuesday of this week and in other submissions: that the Bill does not really spell out the need for an agricultural policy that underpins food production of the highest standards—animal welfare and health, as well as environmental—and how we bring those things together. Food production and the environment do go hand in hand, and our thinking about post-CAP agricultural policy is about how we drive productivity improvements. At the same time, such improvements contribute to environmental challenges around such things as climate change, water quality, biodiversity, habitats and so on.

Clearly, as I am sure Mr Eustice would say, an awful lot of the Bill is about delivering a new agricultural policy for England that has a significant focus on environmental delivery, public goods and so on. We buy into that philosophy as well, but we would probably want to do it under our own steam and at our own pace using different measures and approaches, because that is the nature of Scottish agriculture.

Such things as grazing livestock in the uplands of Scotland add huge value in terms of their environmental contribution, but they also underpin many rural communities and the local economy. It is about ensuring the continuity, as much as anything else, of such activities, and how we manage ourselves regarding the continuation of that ongoing land management, respecting the fact that people are producing food and managing the land at the same time. That is where we need to be.

We would argue strongly, as we have done, that it has to be a devolved delivery, but the principles around productivity and environmental delivery, which are not mutually exclusive, have to be adhered to as well.

[Chris Davies]

Q We have heard from other farming groups that the Agriculture Bill does not contain enough agriculture. Do you agree, or do you think that there is enough agriculture in it relative to environment?

Jonnie Hall: As I said in response to Mr Whitfield’s question, I agree that on the face of it there is not a direct and clear reference to driving agricultural production of the highest standards that delivers both on animal health and welfare and the environment simultaneously. That is important; it is the Agriculture Bill.

Food and drink as a sector in Scotland is hugely important to the economy—it is the largest manufacturing sector in the Scottish economy—but it will not go anywhere without the primary producer. If we end up in a situation across the United Kingdom where the primary producer is steered more and more to the delivery of purely public goods and not market goods, in terms of food production, then you could see significant implications for food security and our ability to generate exports of high-quality product.

Ivor Ferguson: The document that we have out for consultation at the moment in Northern Ireland certainly recognises the need to produce food. Northern Ireland farmers are very passionate about producing food, but they are also very passionate about the environment. Not only do we need the ability to produce food to the high standards that we do, but we would like the ability to expand our business. We see the mainland GB market as a very big market for us and, as I said, we export 80% of our food, so there are opportunities there for us. We would certainly like the ability to be allowed to expand our food business. From that point of view, we are happy that that is already in our Northern Ireland document.

Agriculture Bill (Second sitting)

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Q In this morning’s evidence session, we had two farmers from different parts of the country, representing different types of farms. One was from Cambridgeshire, where the fields have been amalgamated and production is very intensive, and the other was from the south-west, and he said, for example, that the field margins around hedges discriminated against him because he has small fields. On my farm, I have very small fields, compared with my next-door neighbour, and I always feel that we are being picked on.

As we go forward, how can we manage to have a system that works for the farmers who have intensified their farms and are going to green them up while not being unfair to the ones who are already very green? How do we reward progress and, at the same time, reward the people who have always been doing the right thing?

Andrew Clark: This is one thing I wanted to pick up in evidence to the Committee. The legislation that we are looking at is only half of the formula that needs to be delivered in order for farms to be profitable, sustainable and productive in future. It is the policy that goes alongside that legislation that is important. That policy needs to be one of opportunity, that creates opportunities for farms to follow the approach, whether it is public good provision, or becoming more productive or, hopefully, doing both those things together.

Looking at that policy and the measures that are available, it is important that the Agriculture Bill ensures, in fact, almost places a duty on Ministers, to deliver schemes that help farms to be both more productive and more sustainable in future. Those two themes would apply both to the farmer in the west country and the farmer in East Anglia. There are great opportunities for both of them to manage soils better or protect waters and thereby manage their farms in a more profitable and productive way in future—for instance, by nutrient management and introducing some of the approaches in terms of minimum till agriculture. That would apply to both farming situations.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Q This a very straightforward question, but I am not sure you are the person to comment on it. Do you think in this primary legislation an opportunity could be taken to resolve the red meat levy discrepancy between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England?

Andrew Clark: For fear of breaking into devolved discussions, I suspect that the Agriculture Bill is not the right place. I suspect that the reform of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 that set up the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board in the first place, might be the appropriate place. Whether legislation is the way to sort that out or having the parties sit round the table and come to agreement, it is part of a wider issue, which again is perhaps not covered in the Agriculture Bill as much as it should be.

Scotland is absent, as we know, from the schedules, which from a UK farming perspective is concerning. We would like to see a common framework in agreed areas across the whole country, because that benefits every farm business and allows the free flow of goods and services and agricultural activity across the whole UK economic area.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

Q World Trade Organisation rules have come up as a potential concern—that could constrain payments such as less favoured areas or coupled support. It has been said that the Secretary of State could potentially limit devolved Administrations or even England. In earlier evidence, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that WTO concerns were a red herring. Is it a concern you share, considering that we have an aggregate measure of support in the amber box? Are you concerned about the WTO being an issue?

Andrew Clark: There is clearly an obligation on the UK to be a responsible party to the WTO. However, the measures that have taken place that can influence that compliance and participation are devolved to individual parts of the UK and the Governments there. I think that devolution should be respected, but the Governments in each part of the UK need to come together, compare and agree an approach that works for every part of the UK.

We are concerned that, although there might be no intention at the present moment for some of these powers that are granted under the Agriculture Bill to be used by Ministers, this Bill could last 40 years. It could be another decades-long power. Those powers could be used very differently by different Administrations in future. In terms of the WTO obligations and powers, we are not sure how those powers might be used in future.

It is clear that we need to get some more clarity about the powers. That applies not just to the WTO provisions but to many other powers. I think the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee counted 26 new powers granted to Ministers across the Agriculture Bill. We need to have clarification about how those powers are going to be used, in order to have the full sight of Parliament and stakeholders such as the NFU on those detailed concerns.

Plastic Bottles and Coffee Cups

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and to hear of the changes that are coming to the House over the next year.

Plastics help to make a wide range of very useful, durable, versatile products, and, in their own way, they do contribute to sustainability. Thanks to plastic, our shampoo bottles do not shatter in the shower when they are dropped, our cars and trucks weigh less and therefore use less fuel, and our homes are better insulated and save energy. We ship more goods with less packaging than ever before. However, as we have heard today, and I think that we all agree, plastics come with an environmental cost. None of us wants to see the plastics, or trash of any kind, end up in our countryside, our water courses and eventually our oceans. To challenge this end-of-pipe problem, plastics organisations from around the world have joined together in “The Declaration of Global Plastics Association for the Solutions on Marine Litter”, which is informally known as the global declaration. That was completed in 2011 and, unfortunately, up to now only 75 plastics organisations and allied industries, which represent more than 40 countries, have voluntarily signed up to it. There was a commitment contained in that to take action and, more importantly, to make measurable progress.

I draw the attention of the House to Net-Works, an organisation in the central Philippines, which deals with recycling ghost fishing nets taken from the oceans; the plastic straw product stewardship scheme in the US and north America; and, indeed, Upcycling the Oceans, the Thailand project to rehabilitate the coastlands by removing the waste from the oceans. I also wish to draw Members’ attention to the UK’s contribution to this declaration, which is called Operation Clean Sweep. In East Lothian, the charity Fidra is championing plastic waste awareness. It often ran campaigns in the past about plastic straws and it is now concentrating on nurdles.

Nurdles are the small plastic pellets that are used to make the plastic bottles, the coffee cups, and the objects that we see. Nurdles are, in essence, raw plastic, and the problem is how they are transported around the world. Sadly, an astronomically large number of these nurdles escape during this process, and end up in our oceans. Like microbeads, once they are in our oceans, they are almost impossible to take out. Indeed, Fidra has used beach clean-ups to raise awareness among children. When schoolchildren went on a nurdle hunt at Yellowcraig, a particularly beautiful beach in East Lothian, they discovered 400 nurdles in just five minutes. It is a phenomenal amount to be washed up on our beaches, and industrial spillage and mishandling is the cause of this nurdle escape. The nurdles then float and travel around the world.

Operation Clean Sweep seeks to educate industry to provide ways and strategies to reduce the loss and escape of these nurdles, but, again, this is an end-of-pipe product. It is before the plastic gets into our chains that we need to look. This in turn brings me to the types of plastic that we use. We should move to a mandated minimum use of rPET content in plastic objects. PET is an acronym for polyethylene terephthalate, which makes up plastic, and when it is recycled it becomes rPET. Is it too much to hope that products such as coffee cups and water bottles could contain at least 50% rPet by, say, 2020?

Plastic cups are the end product of a process that many good people, charities businesses and organisations are trying to make sustainable and reusable. I am thinking of the lobster hatchery in North Berwick, founded by Jane McMinn, Davis Grubb and Jack Dale who see our oceans not as a dumping ground, but as an opportunity for sustainable inshore fishing. Indeed, the award-winning Seabird Centre in East Lothian sees the results of oceanic plastic pollution miles and miles from these shores. These are the people who are advocating responsibility.

However, our young people and our volunteer groups and charities will not be enough without political and, if necessary, legislative support. The EU is promoting the target of 2030 as the year by which member states should have phased out single-use plastics. The UK Government’s proposal of a 25-year environment plan appears to be, with all due respect, more of a repackaging of existing policies and previous announcements. I sincerely hope that the repackaging is not in plastic.

It is our children who go to the beach clean-ups, and our surfers who use our water. Through the conduit of the plastic whale, which was mentioned earlier, and the nurdle hunts, these people attack the issue with passion, enthusiasm and commitment, but those young people now who are cleaning beaches will be in their 30s by the time these Government policies come in. We owe them more than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

For the record, I did say shiploads—boatloads of materials. Zero Waste Vietnam is a very proper organisation; it would not resort to any foul language. In that case, a local organisation presented us with evidence that the plastic that we are exporting may not actually be recycled. That is the point of these export recovery notes.

[Martin Whitfield]

One of the great challenges of recycling is that the bottles and containers are often dirty when they go into system, and thus pollute whole loads. One of the great behavioural changes that we need to adopt is the ability to clean these containers ourselves before we submit them to be recycled.

[Alex Sobel]

We certainly do not want to see boatloads of dirty waste, so I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We also need a complete audit of our PERN system and should look at reform. If we are to export plastic, which I do not actually agree with, we need to know that it will be recycled when it arrives at its destination.

Although the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is not in his place, I want to thank him. I have a copy of his letter, which I read carefully this morning. The recommendations of the Administration Committee are not only recommendations for this House; they are recommendations that the Government should consider and which present a holistic approach to tackling the use of plastic. The letter mentions ending sales of plastic water bottles. It also includes the latte levy, which we will not have outside this place, but we will have here. The Committee proposes that we incentivise the use of reusable cups through loyalty rewards and that we get rid of condiment sachets. I was amazed to read how much sauce we eat in this place. We consume 334,800 sachets of sauce a year; we are a saucy lot in this House. I thank the Administration Committee and hope that the Government take on some of its saucy suggestions.

Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Marine Environment

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to speak in this timely and important debate. I will go back to May 2017, when Greenpeace’s ship the Beluga II visited the Bass rock in East Lothian, bringing with it water sampling equipment to test the microplastics in the area. The Bass rock is important because it is the world’s largest northern gannet colony. The children who came out to see the Beluga II were so excited, enthralled and enthused by what they saw that they took up a beach clean and took it upon themselves—aged between seven and 11—to clean up the beach. They did that having spoken not just to those who come out and advertise such things, but to the scientists who were on the ship, who explained to them the damage that the plastic did.

That work moved on in East Lothian with Surfers Against Sewage, a group that rightly has great interest in what is in the seawater for its sport. It worked with Dunbar primary school, one of only 20 schools to have been awarded the title of ocean guardian, and works year on year with beach cleans of that sort. Hugo Tagholm, the chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, has said that it is willing to provide the basic equipment for beach cleans. More importantly, it says:

“From grassroots to Government, the time to act is now.”

That is why today’s debate is so timely, because what happens in the very near future will make such a difference to our seas.

We have already heard mention of the Sky Ocean Rescue campaign. When the plastic whale, which has also visited Parliament, visited Musselburgh in my constituency, children flocked to see it. But they also went down again with the rangers of East Lothian Council to clean the beaches of plastic. I was privileged to be with them when they were interviewed by Sky. The children did not say they were doing it because Sky was there. They did not say they were doing it just for half a day away from school. They were stunned that people still dropped litter.

These primary school children understand something that, apparently, people forget as they grow older. They were aghast at what they found on the beaches. When it was suggested to them that perhaps it was teenagers who had dropped all the bottles, they said, “No it’s not; it’s adults,” and they picked the bottles up. That is testament to our young people and their understanding of and connection with the environment, which is something to be hopeful about and something we should promote.

In East Lothian, we have a charity called Fidra, which looks at the problem of nurdles. Nurdles are the small plastic balls that go to make all the plastic bottles we see. Nurdles are how raw plastic, for want of a better description, is transported around the world, and they make up an astronomically large proportion of the plastic damage in our oceans. The difficulty is that, much like the microbeads, once they get into the water, they are impossible to get out. Fidra is working hard with companies to change the way that nurdles are transported and to change business procedures, in order to prevent spillages and prevent the nurdles getting into the ocean.

Fidra also uses beach cleans to raise awareness of the matter. Working with children at Yellowcraig, a truly beautiful beach in East Lothian, over 400 nurdles were collected in just five minutes. That is a phenomenal amount to have washed up on a beach. Industrial spillage and mishandling then cause nurdles to float and travel around the world.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

I also attended a nurdle hunt in North Queensferry with members of Fidra. While there is a great sense of displeasure from children and parents that this is happening to their beach and their environment, what steps can we take to get that message through to the people who produce the plastics in the first place, to ensure that we do not have to have beach cleans, but can have a policy that prevents it from happening in the first place?

[Martin Whitfield]

That intervention brings me on to Operation Clean Sweep, an agreement that has come up from the plastics industry and is supported by both the British Plastics Federation and PlasticsEurope. The Operation Clean Sweep manual provides practical solutions to prevent nurdle loss for those who make, ship and use nurdles. The key message, of course, is good handling to reduce pellet loss and pellet use, which in turn goes to the type of plastic being used.

However, the work by young people, volunteer groups and charities will not be enough without political and, if necessary, legislative support. The EU is promoting the target of 2030 as the year by which member states should have phased out single-use plastics. The UK Government’s proposal of a 25-year environment plan appears to be, with all due respect, more of a repackaging of existing policies and previous announcements—I sincerely hope that the repackaging is not in plastic. It is our children who go to beach cleans, and our surfers who use the water. Through the conduit of the plastic whale and the nurdle hunts, they attack this issue with passion, enthusiasm and commitment. Unfortunately, those children will be in their 30s when the Government have caught up. We owe them more than that.

Livestock Worrying: Sussex

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. There are already some protections, but they are too weak, particularly around this time of year.

Over the last couple of years in Sussex, we have experienced some particularly bad dog attacks, including the infamous incident in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), where 116 sheep were attacked, and another incident in 2015 where sheep were driven off Beachy Head by dogs. The region is, of course, heavily populated and that, combined with its grazing landscape, means that these conflicts tend to occur more regularly than elsewhere.

Since September 2013, there have been 497 recorded cases of livestock worrying, but that is only the pinnacle of the problem as many farmers do not report; they do not believe the police will follow up and do anything, and therefore we believe the true number of incidents is much higher.

The blight of livestock worrying has cost Sussex farmers £66,000; that is only the recorded financial loss, but the fines have added up to only £2,224. There seems to be a disparity between the punishment and the loss to our farms.

We are also acutely aware that the number of reported cases from dog owners themselves is very low. We might therefore require dog owners to self-report when their dogs do things wrong. I would like to know from the Minister what plans there are to support the police to take action against offenders and prosecute appropriately with repeat offenders, and what plans his Department has made to ensure that farmers can report attacks more easily and to improve signage and information on farms. Despite the tendency of the law to back the livestock keeper, the problem is continually getting worse and there are very few prosecutions. As we have heard, public education has a huge role to play, as does getting a number of successful prosecutions which can be publicised as a warning to less responsible dog owners.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My constituency lies in Scotland and faces the same problem as my hon. Friend’s. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that this is a UK-wide problem, and that the effect on individual farmers is enormous and often missed in the statistics? These farmers take great care of their sheep and the financial loss is huge, but so is the loss to the structure of the flock.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I agree; I am raising this is as a Sussex issue because of the high number of incidents there and because I am a Sussex MP, but this is an issue across the country where we have flocks, particularly that roam near urban areas or where there are towns nearby. Will the Minister consider having an effective public education campaign, building on some of the campaigns that have already been co-ordinated, to make sure that dog owners in urban areas, as well as rural areas, understand that this is an important issue?

Some have called for the Minister to consider developing dog DNA information and DNA testing to help identify dogs. While that might be going a little too far, it might be interesting to know what forensic detail the Department is thinking about employing to track down those responsible. Will the Minister consider changing the law so that dog owners have the legal obligation to report livestock attacks?

Ultimately, it must be stressed that the No. 1 job of our farmers is to produce safe, sustainable and traceable food for our communities and country. They can do this only if they are able to farm safely and profitably, and livestock worrying is seriously affecting their ability to do that. For small farmers in particular, livestock worrying is devastating because of the huge impact it has on their productivity. It can set them back many months. This problem is entirely preventable. If there were simply enough awareness of the issue, if we were able legally to enforce a leashing requirement for dogs in fields with livestock, and if we were able to ensure that the police dealt effectively with the problem, we might be able to stamp it out and support our farming communities.

Anti-Corruption Strategy: Illegal Wildlife Trade

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman, who is well known for his love of animals and has fought for many years on these issues and other environmental matters, makes a very valid point. I do not know in detail the document to which he refers, but it sounds as if a horrible loophole needs to be closed immediately, so I am grateful to him for drawing that to my attention.

I want to address the Government’s slightly lacklustre, “could do better” efforts to date at combating the illegal wildlife trade’s contribution to money laundering and organised crime. I have tabled written questions, as many hon. Members have—a lot of them are here today—and quite often the answer given is that the Government will be hosting a summit in London in October to address these matters, or they state sums of money that have been spent on this issue. To the layperson, a sum of money is a bit intangible. It is a figure; they cannot see what is actually happening. The October summit seems to be the answer to all our ills, but I have a series of questions for the end of my speech about specific things that I would like to happen.

As my co-chair of the APPG will know, the elephant in the room—ha-ha—on all this and on the anti-corruption strategy, which thankfully has now been published, is the slowness of the UK not just to encourage but to ensure that all our overseas territories adopt public registers of beneficial interest as soon as possible. I know that that issue is not quite within the Minister’s remit, but if she could pass it on to her colleagues, that would be great.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this most important debate. Does she agree that as well as wildlife trafficking, which covers our fauna, there is also the question of flora? Illegal logging is going on. That causes huge economic and environmental damage to an area and, consequently, the flow of that illegal wood into the system causes disparities in economic value.

[Dr Huq]

I completely agree. Both flora and fauna are handled by the EU body that deals with these things, and there is a worry about whether, when we leave the EU, we will still be covered. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the issue is not just cute, furry animals, scaly animals or whatever. Both fauna and flora are implicated in this vile trade.

The supply chains are complex. There are both poachers and traffickers. The ivory trade alone is estimated by the UN to be worth $62 million in east Asia, with approximately 75 tonnes of elephant ivory exported. It is not just, as one might imagine, one or two elephants being killed by rogue poachers. There is an industrial element to this organised crime—huge-scale shipments to foreign buyers at the other end. People get away with it because, in the words of Tom Cardamone in written testimony to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, this is “Low Risks, High Profits”.