Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The York long-term plan will use a whole catchment approach to flood risk management. It includes upper catchment management changes, which will be a key component in reducing risk to York and other communities downstream, including the ones to which he refers. I can assure him that the modelling by the Environment Agency ensures that hard flood defences in York will not impact on the communities he has mentioned.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is two years since the devastating floods hit York, yet last week the residents of Clementhorpe learned that their barriers were going to be further delayed and that they will not have protection until at least 2019. What will the Minister do to ensure not only that that programme is speeded up, but that the residents of York are protected in the intervening period?

[Dr Coffey]

Since the floods of December 2015, when about 600 properties were flooded, we have invested £17 million to upgrade the Foss barrier. That includes eight high-volume pumps to provide an even greater standard of protection than before, and we have developed a five-year plan to invest £45 million in new defences that will better protect 2,000 properties.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We support the research work by the European Food Safety Authority. Its conclusion is very much that glyphosate is safe and that is why we have supported its re-authorisation. On pesticides, we will always take an evidence-based approach.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last Friday I visited Askham Bryan agricultural college in York. It says that the new exam framework does not work because assessment of, for instance, the felling of trees cannot be done in the tight window of the spring, and the harvest cannot be brought in during the spring either. Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Education Secretary about broadening the scope within which assessments can take place?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that important point, which I will indeed put to the Education Secretary.

Upper Catchment Management

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered upper catchment management.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, for what will be the last Westminster Hall debate of this Parliament. Upland catchment management is an important subject to focus on. Many Members in the Chamber today will have experienced flooding in their constituency, as I did in York Central on Boxing day 2015. We know the devastation that came from that. In York, 453 residential homes were flooded and 174 businesses experienced flooding. There are families who are still not back in their homes and businesses that are yet to reopen, such as the Blue Bicycle restaurant on Fossgate, which is still waiting for repairs to begin. Although we celebrate places such as Jorvik, which reopened over the Easter recess with a new exhibition—I encourage all Members to visit and to send their constituents there, as well as to the Merchant Adventurers’ Hall, which has also been restored—there is still so much to do. The insurance systems still are not working, and resilience is still an aspiration, not a reality. We need far tighter flood governance to support people when planning, during flooding and afterwards too.

To make a real difference, we have to look upstream at how we prevent flooding downstream. I am sure all Members present would agree that to address flooding in our country properly, the resource and focus need to switch upstream. With climate change, we know that flooding is a reality in this country, so we have to get on top of the agenda. I have been saddened that the Government have not prioritised climate change in the past couple of years in the way we would want. I know for sure that Labour will ensure we tackle the causes of flooding, as well as flooding itself. That phrase may resonate with people as a commitment, and they will see the actions that we will put behind that.

I know that instigating methods of prevention is always better than having to mop up after a disaster. That was why I was so disappointed by the Government’s “National Flood Resilience Review”. It talked about spending money on defences and moveable defences—it is only a little bit of money, mind, that is being put into that—without getting resource where it is needed upstream. The review also said that would not happen until the next comprehensive spending review. I am pleased to say that after the election, Labour’s comprehensive spending review will address this very issue to ensure we address flooding at source.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I fully understand what the hon. Lady says, but we only have to look a few miles to the west of York, to my constituency of Calder Valley, to see what the Government have done. They have done a tremendous job in developing a full catchment plan that looks at how agencies work together, tree planting, leaky dams, grip blocking and the management of reservoirs. Does she not agree that the Government’s focus, particularly since the Boxing day floods, has moved away from the bog standard, “Let’s build a wall”, to having an upper catchment plan, which is exactly what we have in the Calder Valley?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I am sure we will talk about different schemes that have been put in place. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who represents my not-quite-neighbouring constituency, is here, and we will consider what has happened at Pickering. We need to ensure that all such schemes slow the flow, because that is really important in addressing these issues.

I am sure all hon. Members agree that it is important that we build evidence—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is nodding—about what produces the best solutions for addressing upland management, which is why it is deeply disappointing that the Government have cut the research budget. I want to talk about a specific piece of research that I am going to ask the Minister to review. The University of York has carried out research into moorland management. This extensive piece of work, which is the most comprehensive of its kind, has run for five years at a cost of £1 million to the Government. The university is asking for a further five years of research funding—£660,000—to complete that innovative research, which covers 500 different patches across a whole catchment to look at how best to manage the moorlands. The groundwork has been done, so it is nonsensical not to see it through to completion. Doing so would enable us to see the impact over 10 years, which in turn would have a real impact on constituencies such as mine.

I believe it is best for Government to look for opportunities to save spending money. If that research runs for a further five years, it will address issues such as complete management rotation and the impact of the regrowth of vegetation. We will see the impact across the whole catchment, as well as the impact of time, and what 10 years produces, as opposed to just five.

I said that £660,000 is the upper limit for that piece of research, and that £1 million was spent on the first phase. So far, the university has been able to secure £353,000 from other sources, so it needs only £307,000. The Stockholm Environment Institute will put 20% towards the research, so that figure comes down to only £246,000. I am sure the Minister will agree that spending £246,000 over five years—£49,000 a year—is better than spending £2.3 billion to mop up the disaster from floods and putting barriers in places where they will perhaps not be needed if the research is complete. This is about investment and saving money for the Treasury, which I am sure the Minister would welcome.

My shameless plea is for us to apply some common sense and to extend that unique piece of research, which will improve our climate, reduce flood risk and reduce the prospect of spending so much money downstream. I am all for trying to reduce Government spend if we can invest it in the right places. As a keen walker, I am out and about across the moors and the dales, and I have seen the way the uplands are managed. This research, which is entitled “Restoration of blanket bog vegetation for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water regulation”, speaks to the need to use evidence to ensure we have better management.

There is more that will come from the research. It has excited academics beyond our shores, and has encouraged them to look at what we are doing. They want it to be completed, which is why we have got interest from Sweden. The Moorlands Association also said it is vital, which is why it is willing to put resource into it. Members of the public—it is their taxes and their money—do not want to see future floods. Therefore, they want their money to be spent prudently. At £49,000 a year, we could not get a better investment in something that will be so significant.

The research has concluded that how the uplands are managed has an impact on the amount of water that comes downstream. We had a debate on grouse moor shooting and how to manage the moors in that context. If we look at burning versus mowing the heather, it brings a 10% to 20% reduction in the amount of water coming downstream, which is significant. In a place such as my city of York, we are talking about 40 cm of water, which would have greatly reduced the damage caused on Boxing day 2015. That is significant.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a good point about burning versus mowing, but does she understand that some locations on the grouse moor cannot be mowed because the terrain is not suitable for mowing? The people who manage the moors mow when they can, but other areas need burning rather than mowing.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman has a point, but the research also looks at other management of the moorlands. Some sites, for instance, are left fallow to see what the impact is and there can be absorption. The research looks not only at heathers but at the wider biodiversity that comes from the upland management. That is why a 10-year research programme is so much more significant. Measures arising from the research already conducted would bring flooding down in York by 40 cm. Looking at the regeneration of certain species over 10 years could reduce that level further. If we consider York and the 40 cm, many of the barriers now being discussed, and how high they are raised, might not need to be in place and could therefore save even more money. If we then reinvest that money into planting trees and, as in Pickering, having leaky dams upstream and other forms of water catchment, we could be talking about significantly more water not coming downstream: perhaps 45 cm or 50 cm, and each centimetre is significant. That proves the research is crucial to drive forward a programme that really addresses the issues.

[Craig Whittaker]

I want to challenge the 40 cm figure. If my memory serves me correctly about the research that the hon. Lady quotes, there is a line that clearly says the flow is unimpeded. As we know, in the uplands we do not have unimpeded flow, so that is an incredibly worst-case scenario if we had flat moors and the flows came straight down the hill. The evidence quoted is not evidence because it uses unimpeded flow.

[Rachael Maskell]

I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s point because I sat down with the research scientists and looked through the evidence they produced. They say it is 40 cm, but that could increase beyond that for certain scenarios. They want to carry out a 10-year research project to make sure that the data have even more rigour than the five-year research project carried out to date. Although there are differences in the way in which the water flows, and we want other measures such as filling in the grips and so on, the evidence clearly suggests that a different form of moorland management will make a difference in the amount of water that comes downstream.

We do not get the benefit from only the water flow. There are many other by-products. For instance, different management of the moorlands will produce greater soil resilience, which means that there would be less summer drought in the moorlands, thereby sustaining the bio-habitat over the summer and for a longer period, which is a real benefit, and we would increase the quality of the soil. We know from the debate we had on soil quality how important that is. Improving absorption is also important. On a climate issue, burning puts carbon into the atmosphere, leaving charcoal behind as a by-product as opposed to holding that in the soil.

It is also important to see this matter as part of a wider environmental strategy. I am sure the Minister will remind us that all of that will be discussed in the 25-year environment plan. To her embarrassment, I am sure, the plan was going to be produced before summer 2016, and then we were told we would get the framework before Christmas—so we cannot even use the Brexit argument now—but we are still waiting on that 25-year plan. It is a 25-year plan to write, I am convinced.

The Environmental Audit Committee has also recognised the need for more joined-up thinking about the benefits of such a framework. Bringing in issues such as how we improve planting and planting in the right place is vital in catchment management.

There is recognition that where heather is burned, we get greater germination of the seeds, which then bring heather. However, it has been shown that mowing means we get more shoots coming off the heather. For those who go out grouse shooting and support it, which I do not, mowing is better for that sport—if we can call it a sport; I probably would not. Mowing is also less labour-intensive, so it is good for those managing the moorlands.

Air quality, water quality, soil quality and biodiversity all come together here, and a 10-year study of the impact on all of them is significant. Anyone who is keen on the environment and on seeing environmental measures advanced will want to support that research, which I remind the Minister would cost only £49,000 a year. That study is required. It is long term, and it will improve our environment.

I say to the Minister, on behalf of my constituents who face the devastation, that this is about their money and their future. They have experienced real difficulties during the flooding and still are. Building evidence-based policy, which is surely what the Government want to do, by investing in a little piece of research will make a significant change. I trust that she will commit today to review that piece of research and its second phase and agree to fund the small price that it costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for securing this debate on a topic in which I think most of us are interested. I heard on Radio 4 this morning that climate change is only going to get worse. I do not know how far north other hon. Members go, but my north is certainly a wee bit further than theirs. I look forward to addressing a topic that is dear to everyone’s hearts.

The hon. Lady made a particularly interesting comment about the £49,000 a year that is required to fund research to help resolve a problem. By anybody’s standards, that is a pitiful amount to find. If that research would help to resolve a problem, the Government should, without any doubt whatever, be able to find that money.

[Rachael Maskell]

If the Government make that funding commitment, other people may come on board, so that figure could go down even further than £49,000 a year.

[John Mc Nally]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. She is a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flood prevention, which I chair, and I am always impressed by her knowledge of and passion for her area and the wider field. I commend her for everything she does. As chair of the APPG, I had plans to visit some areas, but unfortunately a general election has come along in the middle of those plans. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) painted a picture of Pickering as a place of modern art, so if we are both re-elected, I will take the opportunity to visit that area, too.

Flooding is the UK’s predominant natural hazard, and a significant increase in properties at risk is projected in the years to come. As we all know, flooding is rarely good business. For small and medium-sized enterprises, it is sometimes a matter of survival. I learned that all too well as a councillor in Falkirk. When the River Carron is in spate, it is the second fastest flowing river in Scotland and, I assume, in the UK. During that time, I found myself helping people and businesses affected by flash flooding and saw first hand the disruption that was caused to traffic and the community.

Getting involved in finding a solution opened my eyes to the value of preventive measures. There is no doubt that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Mitigation measures such as weirs, widening and increasing the height of bridges, and some hard defences are all needed, and mostly they are planned under the area’s flood risk management strategy. We also introduced fish ladders and a mini-hydro project, which are starting to bring additional benefits to the community. To emphasise what the hon. Member for York Central said, once one person is brought in, that seems to attract another. Groups follow, and are motivated by other people’s initiatives, including the one I am describing.

As chair of the all-party group on flood prevention and a member of the EAC, I took it upon myself recently to visit various areas—Tadcaster, Leeds, Ballater, Newton Stewart and Hoy—and began to put together, to present to the Minister, the evidence about small and medium-sized enterprises and how they are affected. I understand that a lot of good work has been done in Calder Valley. The community is extremely resilient, but there is still a continuing problem for small and medium-sized enterprises. I believe that insurance brokers there formed their own insurance funding, to help to cover such enterprises that could no longer afford to insure their businesses and properties, or, indeed, the excess amounts given to them.

I have heard people identify the need for better catchment level co-ordination between the bodies responsible for flood management in England and I have had an insight, from seeing and hearing things at first hand, into the willingness of communities to take part in flood risk management; but I have also heard their frustration, and I have heard about the reluctance of the Environment Agency, local authorities and other agencies to work with those local groups.

A water body’s catchment is the entire geographical area drained by that water body and its tributaries. Since the system is all connected, flood risk in a given part of the catchment area will be heavily influenced by what is happening above it in the catchment. Traditional flood management has focused on building hard defences and of course, as I have said, they are needed; but upper catchment management treats the catchment area as a single system, and it is vital to use natural flood management measures to slow the flow of water towards vulnerable areas. The approaches complement each other. Slowing the flow of water decreases pressures on hard defences and, most importantly, reduces the maintenance costs and the risk of failure of those already established flood defences.

Natural flood management has already been a lifeline for communities such as Pickering in Yorkshire that are too small for hard defences to be cost-effective. Such measures can have additional benefits, as has been said—trapping sediment and agricultural pollution and providing human amenities such as parklands and habitats for wildlife, including game.

The use of natural flood management at catchment scale is still in its infancy, and measuring the effects of a given flood management measure across something as hydrologically complex as a large catchment is difficult. I am certain that that fact is realised by those employed in the industry. There are risks as well as opportunities. As far as I know there is no conclusive evidence that natural flood management can be used at a catchment scale to reduce flood risk.

[John Mc Nally]

I could not agree more. It is a great example of how water does not know anything; it just goes where it has to go and there is no doubt that we need to think about how to manage the problem.

As I have said, there is no conclusive evidence that natural flood management can be used at catchment scale to reduce flood risk; if water storage capacity is added in the wrong place it, too, can increase rather than decrease the risk of flooding, so it must be considered very carefully. That is all the more reason for proper research and funding. There is a pressing need for research and projects—I know that there are projects under way around the country—but we must be careful that that is not used as an excuse for inaction. Natural flood management options have already been shown to be cost-effective management tools for managing localised flood risk in pilot projects such as the one carried out in Pickering, but even in the absence of catchment-scale flood risk reductions, it would make sense to identify areas where there is an opportunity to use NFM on a smaller scale, or where it might itself increase flood risk.

Catchment-level maps of natural flood management opportunities and risks are maintained in Scotland as part of the indicative flood maps provided by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. As far as I am aware, in England, opportunities for natural flood management have been mapped only for a few catchment areas in Yorkshire and Cumbria. The Environment Agency has produced detailed maps of England showing where there is potential to restore different types of wetland, but not where that might impact on flood risk, which is an important point to remember.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the mapping that the Environment Agency has carried out. It is incredibly frustrated that it cannot get on with putting the schemes in place and with getting the research to show the best mechanisms for slowing the flow. Does that not make a further point about another agency that would benefit from the research by the University of York?

[John Mc Nally]

Once again, I agree with the hon. Lady. At the last APPG meeting, we could hear that there is an urgency for all people to work together. One of the points emerging, every time we go to a place, is that no one seems able to take a lead. Everyone is waiting on someone else to do it. It is not a lot of money in the scale of things, and it will cost an awful lot more not to do it than to do it—so I absolutely, totally agree.

We also hear the argument that NFM might not provide protection against the most extreme rainfall events. Those arguments do not seem to take it into account that by taking pressure off hard defences downstream, NFM could decrease the risk that those defences might fail, and reduce their maintenance costs.

The cost of installing and maintaining the measures is very low compared with traditional flood defences. Most use natural materials obtained on site and are easily implemented by landowners or volunteers. If anyone takes some time to look at work that has been carried out, they would be impressed by how little it takes to make these things happen.

For example, in Stroud, Gloucestershire, the local authority designed and implemented a NFM scheme that was credited with sparing the town from flooding in March 2016. The total cost so far has been circa £215,000. Previous flooding in 2007 affected 200 properties. A reservoir built in 2011 to enhance the protection of 350 properties in Gloucester cost £1.5 million. I think that makes the point clearly.

The Government announced in the autumn statement that they will invest £15 million in natural flood management in England, yet they are evasive about its allocation. Thanks to investigations undertaken by Friends of the Earth, we know that before the announcement was made, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was commissioned by the EA to draw up plans for £20 million worth of NFM projects. When pressed about its allocation, the then Secretary of State would only say that the money would be used to test the methods. Given that large studies into the effectiveness of NFM are already under way, it seems to me that the Government need to give communities in flood-prone areas assurance that the money will be spent on implementing NFM, rather than on projects for consultants.

We have probably all heard of the Chinese saying that the best time to plant a tree is 25 years ago, and the second best time is today. Flood Re will run for roughly another 23 years. Either we implement a programme of action, or many of the 350,000 properties eligible for Flood Re will become uninsurable. Given the time that trees and wetlands need to become established, the implementation of upper catchment management has to be made a priority if it is to play a role in meeting that need. I urge the Minister to act urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, in what will be the last debate in Westminster Hall in this Parliament. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on securing this debate on upper catchment management, and I thank those Members who have joined us today in what is a busy week individually and for Parliament.

I am aware of the impact that flooding can have on a community, as it has happened in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. I am absolutely committed to reducing the threat of flooding, as well as ensuring that we continue to improve our environment as a whole. The Government have played a key role in improving protection for those at flood risk. By committing to invest £2.5 billion by 2021, we will better protect the country from flooding. That money will go to more than 1,500 flood defence schemes to protect more than 300,000 homes. We will also increase maintenance spending in real terms to more than £1 billion.

The key change from which local communities have benefited is that we set out a six-year funded plan that will help the Environment Agency to efficiently and properly draw up schemes, rather than having the hand-to-mouth existence caused by annual budgets, which lend themselves to a stop-start approach. York, like many other places, suffered greatly in the 2015-16 floods, which as we all know were somewhat caused by record rainfall that winter. The hon. Lady will be aware that 627 properties were flooded in York alone. The Government made an additional £175 million available to support the worst-affected areas.

York itself received £45 million of that, which will better protect 2,000 properties with ongoing schemes. A further £35 million each is going to Leeds and the Calder valley. Cumbria received £33 million. The York five-year plan, which was published last December, sets out how the investment will build new defences and investigate new ways to reduce flooding in the city and surrounding area, giving priority to areas of the city that currently do not benefit from formal defences. The hon. Lady will be aware of the further £19.4 million being invested to upgrade the Foss barrier. By December 2017, construction will be complete and the barrier will be able to pump flood flows in excess of the record level experienced on Boxing day, thus protecting the heart of York.

Beyond the current plan for the city, and understandably after the general election, the Environment Agency will consult with stakeholders on the first stage of the York long-term plan, which will identify catchment measures to reduce flood risk in the city. Integrated catchment management is integral to our ambitions for the future of our environment, and we remain committed to holistic planning for our water to maximise benefits to people, wildlife and the economy. There is a consensus around the importance of conserving upland moorland habitats for all the benefits they bring, which include: the filtering of an estimated 70% of our drinking water, storing significant amounts of carbon and providing an excellent habitat for grouse and other wildlife.

The hon. Lady referred to the York University study. She will be aware that DEFRA has invested nearly £1 million in that research already, but following a rigorous prioritisation process, the Department will not be funding a second stage of the project. She will be aware that the learnings of the report will be out later this year, and there may be an opportunity to take lessons from that, but nevertheless, peatland restoration continues to be a priority. As announced earlier this month, DEFRA will be investing £10 million into peatland restoration projects over the next five years, recognising their importance.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have sat down with the academics on this research. Given that the Government have already invested £1 million in the first part of the research and that to complete this groundbreaking research comes at a very small cost of £49,000 a year—as compared with the huge figure of £2.5 billion that the Minister has talked about—surely that investment is worth making. I ask her to go and look at that decision again, for the sake of having a really solid evidence base for policy making.

[Dr Coffey]

As it stands today, I will not be looking at the matter again. I can assure the hon. Lady that the decision went through a rigorous process within the Department, and the decision was made by appropriately qualified officials. She will recognise that we will continue to invest in peatlands and continue to work on moor owners and stakeholders to further improve practices and conditions.

Catchment management is not restricted to the uplands. Enabling whole catchment management requires bringing together local government, internal drainage boards, landowners, third-sector organisations and communities to identify the issues and solutions that provide the maximum opportunities to manage and mitigate water in that catchment to the benefit of residents, businesses and wildlife. We are proactive in supporting local decision makers in catchments to ensure a co-ordinated approach in a catchment, including for water quality, supply and flood management. We intend to strengthen focus on integrated catchment level planning as we prepare for the next cycles of river basin and flood risk management planning. There are already very good examples of partners coming together to consider whole catchment management, some of which we have heard about today, including the work of the flood action groups and the catchment partnerships around the country, which encourage all those who use and depend on water to share in its stewardship.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) asked about catchment partnerships. Last month, we announced a £6.3 million investment this year to continue to facilitate and build capacity in catchment partnerships and to fund projects focused on meeting local priorities, building partnership working and securing multiple benefits, consistent with integrated water management.

Actions under the Cumbria and Calderdale flood action plans, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) referred—I visited him in Mytholmroyd to see some of the progress on them—and which were published last year, include an integrated approach to managing catchment areas. Both areas are now considering how those flood plans can be incorporated into a wider catchment-based approach that considers not just flooding, but water quality, supply and environmental improvements. Of course, we must recognise that each catchment is different, so the solutions will be tailored to each area. We need to encourage more areas to take similar approaches. The Pioneer project we have started in Cumbria will explore that approach, and its learnings will be shared with others, but it is still too early to share any of those learnings.

Natural flood management can play an important role in the management of our catchments, and can have multiple benefits in encouraging biodiversity, habitat creation and improvements to water quality. In York and Yorkshire, the Environment Agency has already worked with consultants to model what and where NFM measures could be introduced into the Foss catchment upstream of York, and in Cumbria the Environment Agency has worked with the Rivers Trust and JBA to model potential natural flood management schemes across four catchments.

Between 2009 and 2015, we invested £4.1 million at Pickering in North Yorkshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has already referred to that. We also invested money in Holnicote in Somerset and Upper Derwent in Derbyshire. Those projects found that the measures could be effective in helping to manage flood risk when carefully incorporated into a wider suite of catchment measures.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) asked about the natural flood management projects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced £15 million of funding for projects across England, £1 million of which has been ring-fenced as a competitive fund for local organisations to bid for. I ensured we set out that £1 million, as it was requested by some members of the National Flood Forum, who wanted the opportunity to have a much wider range of smaller-scale projects. I have also agreed that business cases should be developed for a number of projects across the country, including in Yorkshire and Cumbria, but I cannot give further details of the locations due to purdah. I note the pitch of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for a Yorkshire and Derwent partnership. I am sure that will be carefully considered, as there is a small amount of money—I am not sure there is £175,000 left, but we will see.

I established the principles and chose the business cases we wanted to progress because I felt that we need schemes of different sizes that can be achieved at a good pace, so that we can gather evidence and take forward the learnings about the benefits of natural flood management in different catchment landscapes. I specifically ruled out some projects that would not be able to start for a few years’ time. We want natural flood management solutions to be fairly assessed and supported where they offer a viable way of reducing the damaging impact of flooding. However, we cannot expect that such measures alone will offer protection in areas of the greatest risk or in the face of the most significant flood events, so good integrated catchment management will consider those, along with more traditional flood protection schemes, as the Environment Agency already does in its capital programme.

The need to gather more data and evidence has been mentioned. The Oxford Martin School recently published a restatement of evidence, which looked at previous research and reviewed findings. It reached the conclusion that NFM can provide support in up to 100 sq km of smaller floods, but more research is needed into the impact on larger floods. The Natural Environment Research Council has provided £4 million of further research for natural flood management, and the Environment Agency and DEFRA are developing a directory of evidence and maps to support future projects.

The hon. Member for York Central invited me to visit York. I am certain that I will take her up on that offer in the next six weeks or will certainly be in Yorkshire. This is an important issue, and I am proud that it is our Government who have invested those funds, which will better protect more than 2,000 properties. I will be making clear which particular Government provided that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a shame that that ambition will not be met, by the early calling of the general election. Clearly we want to ensure that there is a strong evidence base. The Minister talks about eye-watering sums. To say that we should not go ahead and build a strong evidence base to ensure that money is spent wisely is something I find deeply concerning, especially as she did not state the criteria she was looking at.

The world outside is saying that this research is so groundbreaking that they want to see it continue. That is why we have even seen organisations such as the Moorland Association committing £100,000 to the research. The cost of the research has been reduced. In the light of that reduced cost to the Minister’s Department, I want to know whether she would reconsider the opportunity to build a sound evidence base through a unique piece of research on catchment management, including biodiversity and soil, water and air quality. It could make such a significant difference for such a small spend.

I cannot comprehend not doing so, and nor will my constituents. I have to say that I did not invite the Minister to my constituency. I do not believe she would be very welcome there, because she is not putting funding into an issue that has turned out to be catastrophic for them. I know from meeting my constituents that they really want this research to go ahead.

Rather than being so stubborn, why does the Minister not go back and look at the research? She did not talk about the detail of the research, so I am not even convinced that she has read it. [Interruption.] Well, it does not seem, from her gestures, that she has looked at the detail of the research, which is negligent on her part. The research is powerful and says how important it is that we carry out this work. Given what flooding has cost my constituents personally, let alone financially, doing a bit of research to build an evidence base for policy making will make a difference.

When we are talking about looking to the future and building a sound evidence base, this academic research—[Interruption.] I am trying to concentrate on what I am saying, but the Minister seems to want to mutter her way through my concluding remarks. The reality is that we need to ensure investment is put into building a strong evidence base.

[Dr Coffey]

We have invested.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister says that the Government have invested, but the academics—who, with respect, know their field—are saying that this research is absolutely crucial. They are world leaders in their work. It is crucial that we listen to the experts and ensure that we see this research through to a conclusion.

Public money to the tune of £1 million has been spent on the first phase of the research. To not see it through to the final phases is, some could say, a waste of public money. I ask the Minister once more to take back to her Department the request to look again at funding this research at a reduced sum, due to the generous contributions of other institutions, including the Stockholm Environment Institute, which see how crucial the research is for addressing flooding in our nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered upper catchment management.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps she is taking to introduce an air quality national framework.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)]

The UK has made significant progress in improving air quality in the past decade, with lower emissions of all five major air pollutants. However, the UK is among 17 European countries, including France and Germany, that are not yet meeting EU emissions targets for nitrogen dioxide in parts of our towns and cities. To help to address this, the Government last year consulted on a clean air zone framework, which will be published shortly.

[Rachael Maskell]

Following three humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to address the 50,000 deaths a year in this country due to poor air quality, and where the Government defended the indefensible, Justice Garnham ordered the Government to produce a new air quality plan by this Monday. Labour believes we need to go further with an air quality national framework as part of a clean air Act. What are the main pillars of the plan and how much resource has the Secretary of State allocated to addressing the UK’s poor air quality?

[Andrea Leadsom]

It is a great shame that the hon. Lady criticises this Government, who since 2011 have committed more than £2 billion to increase the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and support greener transport schemes and have set out how we will improve air quality through a new programme of clean zones. In addition, in the autumn statement we announced a further £290 million to support low-emission buses and taxis, retrofitting and alternative fuels; and, as I say, we will consult on our plans to improve nitrogen oxide emissions very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on that issue, which he and I have discussed on numerous occasions. The Government are committed to giving consumers as much transparency as possible and to improving labelling wherever we can. He understands that there are some difficulties—there is no single definition of halal or kosher, for instance—that make compulsory labelling complex. He is also aware that the European Union has been looking at the issue. Obviously, once we leave the EU there will be an opportunity for us to look at all these issues.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. The 25-year food and farming plan, the 25-year environment plan, the cycling and walking strategy: those supposedly environment-enhancing strategies were all promised to be published before the summer—summer 2016. The Secretary of State has clearly failed the environment, failed farmers and the food industry, and failed to keep her promise. People are now losing their jobs and incomes on her watch. When will those plans see the light of day?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady might be aware that a significant decision was taken by the people of the United Kingdom last summer to leave the European Union. We have been clear about our ambition to make a huge success of the food and farming sector, and to be the first generation to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. On what that means for our plans, it is essential that we consult widely with all the stakeholders. They have clear evidence and ideas to give us for a future outside the EU that is more successful than ever.

Animal Welfare

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree entirely. Many aspects of animal cruelty are reported, but others are not. Having stronger sentencing would be a deterrent; we want to prevent the cruelty from happening in the first place. Having a sentence of at least five years would send the right message. Then it would be up to the courts to decide what sentence they dish out in the end.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is much more important to prevent cruelty in the first place, and therefore changing the legislation on air guns is vital? Cats and dogs are often the targets for people using those weapons. Legislation has been changed by the devolved Administrations for their countries, and it is about time that it was changed in England, too.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady raises a good point. The use of air guns against cats and dogs can have terrible consequences. Lead pellets often cause a lot of injury and subsequent pain.

To make a broader point, we need to do much more in schools and the education system to make sure people know how to look after an animal. Most people do know how to look after animals. Unfortunately, animal cruelty is going on in some families, and perhaps the children do not know of anything else but what is happening at home. We must try to tackle that.

Badger Culling

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed, yes. It is deer in Australia, and there are various problems throughout the world, but in Wales, the neighbouring country to England, we have a very satisfactory situation. Peter Martin was critical of the Farmers Union of Wales for not appreciating what had been done in Wales. He suggested that it should be celebrating the success of the Welsh Government and

“calling on DEFRA and the NFU in England to follow the Welsh example of reducing bovine TB by focusing on improved cattle testing and movement controls. New incidents of bovine TB in cattle are now down by 28% in Wales with a 45% cut in the number of cattle being slaughtered. This now leaves 94% of the Welsh herd TB free, without killing any badgers.”

Ireland has had a fascinating experience. In the 1980s the Irish decided to slaughter all the badgers in the country, which were estimated at 70,000. They exceeded their own expectations, however, because they have culled 96,000 badgers since 1985. The national operation consisted of teams of 100 contractors setting up 6,000 snares a night, working for eight months of every year. In 2012 a whopping €3.4 million was spent culling 6,939 badgers, yet after all that slaughter an examination found that the reduction on the previous year in the number of cattle diagnosed with TB was 55—after that huge expense. That is €61,818 for every cow below the previous year’s figure. It is staggering that that huge amount was spent and so many animals were killed for so little benefit.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is that not even more perverse, given that the badger population is responsible for only about 5.7% of the spread of TB in any form whatever? Investing that money in other biosecurity measures would surely be far better value, let alone more moral.

[Paul Flynn]

As we know, there is a great deal of confused and unscientific thinking about this issue. TB can be spread from badger to badger, from badger to cow, from cow to cow and from cow to foxhound, among which there was recently a significant new outbreak. The Government’s approach has been crude and crowd-pleasing, not science-based. Strangely, in their reply to the petition, the Government actually had the cheek to mention the Krebs report, which was done under another Government, as a matter of some credit to them.

[Rachael Maskell]

TB is also spread by the spreading of slurry on fields. That is not tested, so other measures could be taken. Badgers and cows do not share the same space at the same time. Further research is really needed in that area to prove whether even 5.7% of the disease is spread via badgers.

[Paul Flynn]

That is a really serious problem. We have been permissive in allowing the spreading of slurry. As we know, there is a new case involving the Kimblewick hunt, which hunts in five counties and spreads the infection where it goes. There is permissiveness in not recognising the importance of infection from slurry. It is much easier to blame the badger—to find one culprit and blame it. The Government have their policy. They mentioned the Krebs report, which I believe is the biggest and most scientific analysis that has been conducted anywhere in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

That is an entirely intellectually respectable and humane approach to this issue. Krebs looked at the problem and three approaches were trialled: a reactive approach in which, following TB outbreaks, badgers were culled on and around farms but not elsewhere; a proactive approach in which as many badgers as possible were culled in the whole area and badger numbers were kept as low as possible; and a survey approach, where no badgers were culled but the land was surveyed for details of badger activity. The cull went on for nine years, some £40 million was spent and 10,000 badgers were slaughtered. Reactive culling was suspended in the early days of the trial due to an increase in bovine TB outbreaks in reactive culling areas compared with areas in which no culling had taken place. That was a surprising result, but the independent scientific group advised that reactive culling should not be used to control bovine TB.

After that long period, Mr Krebs announced his decision. He said that the trial evidence should be interpreted as an argument against culling. This is not some prejudice-based release put out by a political party seeking favours; this is scientific proof of the highest order. He said:

“You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers… It doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease.”

He said that he had recommended randomised badger culling trials in 1997 because it was not known then whether a cull would be effective or cost-effective. His view on the issue was formulated after he saw the results—it was based on evidence. No party should have returned to the idea of culling after that impressive evidence and all the scientific reports that supported it had come out.

Imperial College London researchers reported that

“reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after”

culling took place. Within three or four years, badger numbers were up to their previous level. The researchers added:

“These results, combined with evaluation of alternative culling methods, suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB”.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with his time. Is it not really perverse that, throughout the culling process in 2016, badgers were not tested to see whether they were carriers of TB and we therefore really do not know what impact the cull is having?

[Paul Flynn]

That demonstrates the Government’s amateurish approach. They wish to get the animals out of the way, but they have not made a serious attempt to find out how bovine TB is spread.

We now have another worry: the Kimblewick hunt. That must be taken into account, but there does not seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm from the Government to take it up. The Kimblewick hunt is an amalgamation of three hunts. It hunts in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire. Campaigners discovered that the hunt’s hounds are infected with bovine TB. There have long been complaints, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) pointed out, about poor farm hygiene and hunts feeding disease-ridden “fallen cattle” carcasses to foxhounds. The fact that 25 of that hunt’s foxhounds had to be put down because they were infected with bovine TB and a further 120 are undergoing testing is a cause for serious worry, and I have asked the Government what they will do about it.

The infection of foxhounds was not seen as a threat in the past, but few animals are free to cover and infect more territory than hounds undertaking trail hunting or chasing foxes, so this is a really serious new risk. The news has been kept quiet since December. The hunt itself suspended hunting but is apparently carrying on using visiting packs. The problem could be widespread. There are reports that some farmers have belatedly tried to protect their cattle by banning hunts from their land. Farmers local to the hunt’s kennels are refusing to let it hunt on their land. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, it is suggested that the hounds were fed raw, TB-infected meat, even though that contravenes meat hygiene rules and bovine TB controls. Do the Government believe that that is happening or there is a risk of it happening? We are all familiar with the close association that there has long been between hunts and the farming industry, and the way that hunts were used to dispose of fallen cattle. The danger seems to be substantial.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence for a new investigation into the prevalence of bovine TB among foxhounds and a case for suspending hunting until that has been proved to be a risk or otherwise. Let us put that to the test. I have recently put down many questions and had unsatisfactory answers to all of them. We now have a chance to answer the concern of the great majority of the public who do not believe that culling is an effective way of controlling bovine TB and believe it is inhumane and cruel. That is the view that the petitioners have expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I was coming on to the issue of biosecurity, which obviously has something to do with it, as do more accurate tests. There are a number of things that could help. In a spirit of constructive debate, which I hope is what this afternoon is about, I want to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister methods by which we can all help to eliminate the disease, and support the 25-year elimination programme. It is important, in the trial areas, that we eliminate TB in badgers, to prevent this cruel death. Farm biosecurity has rightly been improved, and that has been extended across the country. The Minister has, in this Government and the coalition Government, taken a number of steps to improve testing and biosecurity on farms. Examples include post-movement testing and more accurate skin tests in certain areas. All those things have a role to play; I hope we all agree on that.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

No. I did say that I was not going to give way again. Other people want to speak. By the time I finish, I will have spoken long enough and will be reprimanded by the Chair.

In other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and, I am afraid, Ireland, controlling the TB reservoir in wildlife has had a significant effect, eliminating or severely reducing the incidence of TB in cattle. Fifty per cent. of England is set to be TB-free by next year, with all 10 badger control operations achieving a successful outcome, according to the targets that have been set.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Associated British Foods is one of the great British-owned food companies. It is a world leader in sugar and it has driven competitiveness and investment in the industry. I believe that the sugar industry in this country has a great future.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Since 2010, the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been cut by 57%, which means that the Department is struggling to get out plans such as the 25-year farming plan. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Treasury to protect the budget from the 6% cut expected next week?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My Department is indeed involved in a transformation project, which will take out costs, but it will also deliver better and more focused frontline customer service. I am very optimistic about that, and we are looking very carefully at the further efficiency savings that are needed.

Future Flood Prevention

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some 453 residential properties and 174 commercial properties in York were flooded following Storm Eva, yet we know that in extreme flooding that could rise to as many as 7,200 properties. The city is therefore saying, “What is going to happen next?”

Just last month, York’s own flood inquiry produced a report containing about 90 ambitious recommendations, but no framework to govern their implementation. We need to look back on what has happened after each flood. Resources dry up, and then we do not seem to move much further forward. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), services should operate between floods, dealing not just with the issue of flooding itself but with issues of flood literacy, prevention and resilience. The fire and rescue authority would be well placed to address such issues. In that context, I was disappointed by the Government’s response to the excellent reports from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees.

The Bellwin scheme provides an immediate response, but it does not take account of the need for resilience measures to be taken during the dry seasons. I should like to hear from the Minister how the scheme could be used more proactively to provide incentives for such measures, and how the Government will work with Flood Re and the insurance industry to ensure that resilience is built into properties when the sun is shining, rather than waiting for the next floods to occur. I should also like to hear what plans the Minister has to review the Flood Re scheme. It has been in place for nearly a year, but we know that there are a number of problems. Some properties, such as leasehold properties and properties built after 2009, cannot gain access to the insurance,

We continue to call for a proper scheme for businesses, for which there is such a need. We believe that it is possible to create a matrix model for that purpose. What progress has the Minister made in considering the opportunities for such action? I know that the British Insurance Brokers Association has instituted a scheme in the interim, but businesses have still not heard about it. What is the Minister doing to promote it?

In York, emergency improvements are being made to the Foss Barrier, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). A total of £17 million is being spent on an upgrade which should have taken place over the last 30 years. I am grateful to the Minister’s predecessor for ensuring that we would be able to shift the water—50 tonnes a second—from the river should the barrier need to be used. However, people in our city are saying that more needs to be done. I am not talking about the £45 million that is being spent on building defences; I am talking about catchment management.

The Environment Agency has told me that we shall have to wait for 2021 and the next comprehensive spending review. The Government response boasts about £15 million being spent, but I must say to the Minister that that is a drop in the ocean—or in the flood water—when it comes to building resilience measures. We need proper investment, now, in mapping out catchment areas and working out what needs to be done for the future in relation to, for instance, the “slow the flow” measures. The Government have shown a lack of ambition in respect of the national tree-planting programme, but they need to think about how agroforestry can play a major role in catchment management.

I am interested in the work being done by the University of York on the management of soil and the moorlands. I urge the Minister to commit herself today to full funding of the second phase of the university’s research. Better land management is essential. More water needs to be absorbed upstream rather than running downstream.

I was disturbed to read in the Government’s response that all the action that is needed will appear in a 25-year environment plan. It would be great if we could see the plan, but it is already eight months late. Will the Minister tell us when it will be published—or have I misunderstood the title? Perhaps it refers to the 25 years that it will take to write the plan. We really do want to see what it has to say. I hope that next week’s Budget will contain measures to ensure that proper investment is made in proper catchment management now, rather than our having to wait until 2021. I trust that the Minister will move that forward.

I want to say something about governance. York was left with no plan for managing the floods, and was badly let down by the lack of action from the city council. There was also poor governance from the Environment Agency when it came to risk management. What governance structures is the Minister introducing to ensure that local authority plans are subject to professional oversight, and are risk-assessed to establish that they are robust and fit for purpose? We cannot expect local authorities to mark their own homework when lives could be put at risk. Planning for resilience is vital, and it should be done in the dry seasons. Authorities should not wait to test the plans until the rain and the floods.

I ask the Minister to tell us what further steps she plans to take now, to ensure that we have a flood-resilient nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The point about leasehold properties is that they tend to be owned by the freehold or management company, which is why they come under the commercial area. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me with more details, I will look into it.

Of course I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris)—I have met many other Members. It is good of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) to point out the role of emergency services in her area. I hope that I have answered some of the queries raised by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about businesses. I might not have answered them to her satisfaction, but I point out that Flood Re did not apply to businesses after 2009 because that was when all the rules came in to discourage building on floodplains, and we should not reward them with flood insurance as a consequence of doing that.

In answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), we have a statutory basis for the flood management plan in this country, too.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will not.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the estimates procedure.

Finally, the hon. Member for Workington will be aware that the Cumbria flood action plan was supported by many local communities. I have met, for example, the Keswick flood action group three times since becoming the responsible Minister, and I have to admit that, at times, I have encouraged a little less conversation and a little more action from the Environment Agency. It is important that we get on with some of these schemes, recognising that we are not going to please everybody with every single design. All I know is that people will be better protected than they were this time last year, and that that will continue right across the country.

I commend the estimates in the name of DEFRA to be supported in the votes tomorrow night.

Domestic Ivory Market

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again in a debate about the domestic ivory trade, Mrs Main. I thank Ellen Cobb for creating the petition, and the 107,000 people who have signed it so far. We know that they speak for the 85% of the population who want this Government to introduce a total ban on the ivory trade, but 8% of people believe that such a ban is already in place, which takes us even further into why the Government need to move on this issue.

We have seen progress in China since we last debated this issue, and I very much concur with the many Members who have talked about us now being followers rather than leaders in this movement. We must pick up the pace, because the pace around this issue is definitely picking up out there in our communities. The world is watching on in horror as these majestic, sensitive—we have heard about the way that they live in families—and beautiful animals are butchered, yet we are no further forward with the Government.

What progress has been made in the 50 days since we last debated this issue? If we take the figure of one elephant being killed every 15 minutes, nearly nine elephants have been slaughtered since this debate began, and 4,811 elephants have lost their lives since I last spoke about this issue. But this is not just about elephants; we must remember the rangers who guard those elephants, and some 17 fellow human beings have lost their lives. We are talking about the most heinous crimes, which are destroying these beautiful animals. There is much frustration across the country, as there has been in the Chamber today and as there is, I understand, in the Cabinet. People are baffled that the Government are not moving further, faster. We want the pace to pick up as a result of today’s debate—I have picked that up from every single contribution—and I trust that the Government will respond.

We all have a responsibility. We have heard how important it is for our generation to ensure that we do everything that we can on our watch to introduce a ban and ensure that it picks up pace. Non-governmental organisations have done amazing work; they have campaigned and raised awareness. It is through that awareness that we become more responsible for our actions here. I want to put on the record my thanks to them.

[Dr Cameron]

Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating Stop Ivory, which I meant to mention in my speech? It has really put this issue on the agenda and at the core of what it does, and ensured that public support is targeted and the campaign moves from strength to strength.

[Rachael Maskell]

Absolutely, Stop Ivory has done a wonderful job, as have the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the WWF, Tusk and Save the Elephants. There are so many organisations out there—I would not want to draw out one in particular—all working together, I hasten to say, because they have one objective. I think we can see that right across the House we share an objective with them to move forward on the ban.

As we have heard, what we are talking about is getting on top of criminal activity. Surely the Government’s first focus should be to get on top of what is happening, which is happening in conjunction with other criminal gangs, drug rackets and sales of arms. We know that there is an interconnection, and it is so important that we get on top of that criminal activity. A full ban is one way of bringing an end to those gangsters’ deplorable activity. From the statistics we have heard so many times in this place, we know that 200 to 300 tonnes of ivory are being stolen from elephants. That is bringing in £10 billion to £20 billion of blood money. Therefore, shamefully, we are complicit with that agenda if we are not doing absolutely everything in our power to stop the trade.

I want to come on to the consultation, which we have not seen yet, and the date of 1947. We were promised it at the last debate, but another two months have passed and we still do not have it. I know that DEFRA has so much on its agenda at the moment, not least dealing with the EU, but elephants cannot wait for those distractions. We need to put our foot on the accelerator. Let us move on today. Let us resolve in this place to move on and fast-track our approach in taking this forward.

We have seen how fast China has moved. A vaster, much more complex country than ours is talking about putting a stop to the process in just three months and putting a full ban in place in 12 months, so there is no reason why we have to spend months in consultation or thinking about consultations and what questions to ask. Let us just be honest and straight, and let us just move on. I therefore ask the Minister: why the delay on such an important issue? Can we not just get on with bringing in the ban? She will not find opposition across the House or across the country—in fact, people will get behind her. I therefore urge her to move on with that.

I want to look at the date of 1947. I believe I said in the previous debate that it is a rather arbitrary date, so why are we so rigid on that? Why do we not move forward? We have heard about the US and its 100-year rolling programme, which is perhaps one approach that could be taken, but why do we not move to a total ban? We have heard questions such as, “How can you tell what year it was bought?” Carbon dating is one way of doing that, but again I ask the Minister a question she did not manage to answer the previous time I challenged her on this point: can we tell the difference between ivory from 1946 and 1947 or from 1947 and 1948? Where the margins are so fine, why do we complicate things by drawing false demarcations rather than moving forward to a total ban? As we have heard, the human eye cannot necessarily spot the difference, as pieces of ivory are made to look more antique. We also know that paperwork can be forged. It is therefore important that we do not draw arbitrary lines and then try to justify it around the edges. We must have the courage of our convictions to say, “This is wrong,” and to move on from that.

[Victoria Borwick]

The hon. Lady is right about the difficulty of those details when something is made entirely of ivory. Of course, ivory often forms part of something else. Therefore, we often date, for example, a clock, a piece of furniture with an inlay or another decorative object on the other items. For example, it is easy to date ivory that appears in a silver teapot where it acts as the handle or an insulator. Although this debate is all about ivory—one of the reasons the date was chosen was because it is pre-convention—where ivory appears in something else, the date of the ivory can be assessed from the rest of the item.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Lady knows so much about this subject matter—[Interruption.] She denies it. There may be other contributing factors, so that still does not necessarily date the actual ivory, and that is the subject for today’s debate. We have to move on from trying to draw arbitrary lines and making judgments, either with the human eye or with carbon dating—we have had contributions about the costing of that—and say, “Why make things so complicated, when out there across the country and in this House we want a total ban?” Let us move on from that debate. Let us be really pragmatic and bring in the total ban.

[Rob Marris]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I am trying to be pragmatic. I keep pressing for the evidence. I have to say to her, with all due respect, that she is assuming what she is trying to prove, and I do not accept that as a legislator. She assumes that a total ban will save elephants. Can she give me evidence for that?

[Rachael Maskell]

If my hon. Friend will hold on for now, I will move on with my speech. I will pick up those issues. The problem is, as we argue and debate in here, the gangsters out there are laughing at us, as they are still making their millions on the back of dead elephants. To be seen to take leadership on this issue and to control the agenda, it is so important that we now move forward and see that total ban. We know that the Government promised that in their manifesto, and I have made it clear that Labour would also bring in a total ivory ban, so let us move forward on this today.

The clock continues to tick. We keep debating this issue, and I dare say that if movement is not made in the Minister’s contribution today, we will be back here again and again, and at question times, continually saying, “Let’s move forward, because there is a majority view of how we take this forward.” We cannot go back to the CITES conference or to Hanoi in 2016, or look back to what China has said. We are in 2017 and we have now got our opportunity to make our mark. I therefore urge the Minister to do that, because in 2018 I do not want the UK to be on the world stage as apologists. I want to ensure that we are proud of what we have achieved to save the elephant.

I want to pick up the point that this is not just about a total ban; there has to be a wider strategy built around that. That is right, and that goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). We have to make sure that we move forward. We have heard about the work that the Ministry of Defence is doing: the 1st Division is out there, training up people in the parks to ensure they have better security. That is part of the strategy and, as we have heard, education from the NGOs is absolutely vital, so that this generation and the next understand what is at stake.

We also need to think about what is happening with antiques, as we have heard debated today. I want to pick up the point strongly argued by the hon. Members for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and for Kensington (Victoria Borwick). I will take issue once again with calling them beautiful works of art. I am sorry, they are not. The reality is that animals have died for their production. We need to be honest about what we are dealing with. The problem is, every time these objects are glorified, value is added on to them and on to ivory. We want to see the value taken out of ivory. We do not want these items displayed as glorious parts of our heritage. It is a shameful part of our history, and we should name it as that and realise what we did in leading the world in those trades. We need to move on in the way in which we look at these pieces and name them for what they are.

Why have them on display? The Minister made an important point in the previous debate when she said that perhaps we could take them off the shelves of our museums. Perhaps that is the right way forward. I thought that was a progressive point, because that is a way of taking the value out of these items. That would be a first step in saying that they do not hold the value we have placed on them, and that would be a step forward.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I apologise for not being able to attend the debate from the beginning, Mrs Main. I entirely endorse all that the hon. Lady says about the need to clamp down on the criminals who are now killing a precious species, but what she is saying is fundamentally wrong. The value in the ivory products that came from the tomb of Tutankhamun or the royal graves at Ur, or exquisite pieces of Louis XVI furniture, is not in the ivory but in the workmanship and historic context in which they were produced. Given what she says, why, by the same token, does she not call for a ban in the trade in jewels produced from blood diamond activity—the result of the deaths of thousands of human beings, and not just elephants? How is it that we would save a single elephant by not having the 1947 cut-off?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Can hon. Members keep interventions brief? We are nearing the end of the debate.

[Rachael Maskell]

I absolutely agree. Blood stones— the fact that we have put our ideas of worth above the natural value of our fellow human beings and animals: that is wrong. The hon. Gentleman missed that very point, about the value we put on antiques versus the value of animals that will not be with us much longer, being made earlier in the debate. That is why it is vital to move on. We will mourn, on the day when elephants no longer roam the savannahs of Africa. We are now at the point when we cannot say that our values—our greed and the fact that we want those objects—are more important than saving elephants. It is important to move on and pick up the pace, rather than delaying and dragging our feet. We must put something in place now—including introducing tougher sentencing, as mentioned earlier. That is an important part of a wider package, as is getting on top of the cyber trade, and making sure that there is infrastructure for policing the elephants’ habitat.

We are dealing with organised criminality and we need to do so with the severity it deserves. Therefore let us move on. The Minister has an opportunity not to drag us forward slowly, following other countries, but to take leadership on the issue again and issue a total ban on ivory. That will make ivory pieces worthless—in the sense that the worth of the elephant will come first. I do not think that she will hear a cry from across the country if we do that. It is an opportunity to lead and I trust that the Minister will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is still shortly, and I really hope it will be as soon as possible.

With regard to the reference to CITES and appendices 1 and 2, I think that I answered this in the December debate. CITES relies on scientific evidence. There is a differentiation between appendices I and II, in terms of the extinction rating in the relevant countries. There was reliable intelligence that if what was proposed went through, reservations would be applied by certain countries, thus destroying the ban by CITES.

Laws are only as effective as our action to enforce them, and the House should be proud of its record and global leadership. Enforcement at the UK border is led by Border Force, which makes ivory one of its top priorities. That is reflected by ivory seizures accounting for 40% of seized wildlife products between 2009 and 2014. One seizure alone in 2015—this was referred to—equated to more ivory than was found in the previous 10 years put together. It was more than 100 kg of tusks, beads and bangles that was en route from Angola to Germany and it was detected here in the UK. Enforcement within the UK is supported by the specialist national wildlife crime unit, which provides intelligence, analysis and specialist assistance to individual police forces and other law enforcement agencies. DEFRA has recently provided additional funding to the unit to help it to crack down on illegal trade via the internet—a growing concern.

The UK also shares its wealth of wildlife crime expertise internationally, including in a recent project providing training to customs, police, corruption specialists and parks authorities in Malawi. That has resulted in increased arrests, convictions and custodial sentences for wildlife offences. Initiatives such as those provide a real deterrent to the perpetrators of wildlife smuggling.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I have little time. The UK is working with Interpol to expand its work with key nations, tracking and intercepting illegal shipments of ivory, rhino horn and other illegal wildlife products. Initiatives such as those will make a real impact on the illegal ivory trade by disrupting trafficking routes. Reference was made to sentencing guidelines. It just so happens that I am meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), tomorrow to discuss this matter in more detail.

The driver for poaching is the lucrative profits that can be made in trafficking ivory, which is driven by the demand for ivory products. We need to raise awareness with ivory consumers of the devastating impact that they are having on elephant populations, and ultimately change behaviour. That is why the UK has supported work in Asia to increase awareness of the brutal impacts of poaching and reduce demand for ivory. We are providing practical support on the ground with financial help, and the British military train anti-poaching rangers on the frontline in Gabon, home of Africa’s largest population of forest elephants. That will be extended to other crucial countries such as Malawi. Last year, I visited South Africa, where I saw some of the work that we were doing on other animal populations at risk.

We are supporting projects in communities that share a landscape with elephants. Many hon. Members dwelt on the role of the Foreign Office and, in particular, DFID. We recognise that the money to be made from poaching can be a huge temptation to get involved, so we must continue working closely with DFID and the Foreign Office to create viable alternative livelihoods, but hon. Members will be aware that there are tight controls on official development assistance classification.

I reiterate our shared goal of ending poaching and saving elephants. That means taking not just symbolic action on domestic ivory, but action that works. The Government are committed to introducing the most effective ban possible on ivory. That means that we must ensure that our rules are robust and proportionate and will achieve the aim of ending the poaching of elephants. We need to foster truly international action to tackle the demand that drives poaching, enforce rules more effectively and strengthen criminal justice, as well as supporting communities affected by poaching. The UK continues to be a world leader in the fight to protect wildlife, but we know that there is more to be done. Our consultation on plans for even stronger action will soon be launching. That will enable us to ensure even better protection of our majestic wildlife for generations to come.

I have listened carefully to today’s debate and, in particular, the discussion on antiques and verification; there was talk of certification and radiocarbon dating. I encourage hon. Members to contribute to the consultation and call for evidence, so that we can make progress on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would be happy to meet and discuss that issue separately with my hon. Friend, but I can absolutely assure him that we looked very carefully at this issue. As ever, there is a balance between successful sustainable farming, food productivity and what is right for our environment.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I also wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker?

Earlier this month, the Secretary of State told the Oxford farming conference how excited she was about

“scrapping the rules that hold us back”,

saying that we could all think of at least one EU rule that we would not miss. That may be true, but I am sure that each of us can also think of at least one rule that we would miss and would want to keep. Will the Secretary of State share her choice with us?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have already shared a few choices—the three-crop rule, farm inspections, some of the rules around billboards and so on. I know that the hon. Lady cares a great deal about this matter, as I do. In the great repeal Bill, we will be bringing all environmental legislation—all EU legislation—into UK law, so that, as the Prime Minister said in her speech, the day after we leave the EU, the rules will be the same as the day before we left the EU. That is really important for continuity. At that point, we will be able to look at and change those rules for the better to suit the needs of the United Kingdom.

[Rachael Maskell]

If only it was that easy. Of course, that was an incredibly vague answer—not a specific EU regulation mentioned. Those of us who value EU regulations, which set high standards for food safety, the environment and animal welfare, will not find the Secretary of State’s answer reassuring today. Of course I assume that some kind of objective criteria have to be applied and that rules and regulations are not just going to be thrown on to the Brexit bonfire on the Secretary of State’s whim. If that is correct, can she tell us what those objective criteria are?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady perhaps did not hear my previous answer. I made it extremely clear that the day after we leave the EU the rules will be the same as the day before. After that, we will be seeking to meet our twin ambitions of a world-leading food and farming industry and an environment that is better than the one we inherited. To give her one example of a manifesto commitment that Labour did not have in its manifesto, we will push for high animal welfare standards to be incorporated into international trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would, of course, be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. If we can get our diaries to work, that would be truly delightful. I would particularly like to see the success of the Pickering project, which has been one of the building blocks in securing the £15 million of funding that we announced in November last year, which is dedicated specifically to natural flood management schemes across the UK. This money will let us test new approaches to see how natural flood resources can help us in the future.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

We do not have time to waste. Since the Westminster Hall debate in December, 4,007 elephants have been killed for their tusks. With China introducing a total ban on the ivory trade by the end of this year, will the Government reconsider their proposed and unworkable partial ban, which will still result in criminals being able to trade in ivory, and will the Government move immediately to a total ban on ivory, as Labour would?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady is talking nonsense. The Government are not proposing a partial ban. At the meetings I held in China and Vietnam at the illegal wildlife trade conference last year, we were very clear that we will do everything possible not just to enforce a ban on the trading of post-’47 ivory—enforcement is absolutely key—but to minimise exemptions. The hon. Lady needs to work with us to assure the protection of the species, not make party political points about it.