Backbench Business

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Main. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for providing such an excellent exposition of the plight of elephants today and the causes of the mass slaughter and butchering of those majestic animals. He has been joined by many Members from both sides of the House also pleading for a total ban on the trade in ivory. That feeling does not just exist in the House; we know that 85% of the public want to see a total ban on the trade in ivory, and we heard that only 8% know that trading continues in this country. It is therefore incumbent on us to listen to the public and what they are calling for. The petition is gathering pace. It has more than 76,000 signatures, and I am sure it will have many more after today’s debate. They are calling for a total ban, not a partial ban.

I thank the NGOs for the fantastic work they do in raising awareness of this dreadful issue. Save the Elephants, the World Wildlife Fund, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Tusk and many more are ensuring that the issue is placed in our consciousness and that we know the impact the ivory trade is having. Of course, that impact is not just on the elephant community; we have heard how 1,000 of the rangers who dedicate their lives to saving those wonderful creatures have lost their lives as a result of the criminal activity we are witnessing across the globe. Progress must be made, and I trust that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, it is happening on our watch and this is our opportunity—today we will see progress from the Minister in ensuring that we go further and see a complete ban on the trade in ivory.

In preparing for today’s debate, I have been distressed to read about the mass slaughter of those wonderful animals. In the past year, 33,000 elephants were consigned to their end. For what? For greed, money and criminal activity. We have a duty to stand up for those wonderful animals. Of course, it is not just about the elephant; we have heard today about giraffes—there are now fewer than 100,000 giraffes—and about snow leopards. At the turn of the last century, there were half a million rhinos. Today, there are just 29,000. They have been traded for blood money. It is therefore incumbent on us to ensure that no more elephants lose their lives.

The clock is ticking. In the course of this debate, six more elephants will be murdered. The time for consultation is over; it is time for action, and we must start today. We need the Government to make firm commitments and to be accountable for them. The reality is that the battle is being lost. If we do not make more progress, and quickly, it will be too late and our children and grandchildren will not witness elephants in the wild. That will happen within a generation, so it is so important that we move the debate forward.

We have had opportunities on the global stage. I will not be critical—it is very difficult to bring global progress—but we have to show leadership with those opportunities. The Government have clearly made commitments, but we want to see them fulfilled, not just in the UK, but on the global stage. They should not stand back from those commitments to move forward; they should show leadership and take people along with them, whether at CITES conferences or in Hanoi.

I have spoken to the general of the 1st (United Kingdom) Division of the Army—it is based in my constituency and long may it remain there—about using our armed forces and their skill to protect elephants in Africa. We would welcome such steps because, clearly, this is a war against mass criminality. We need to take such actions and use our skills.

Can the Minister tell me the difference between ivory of 1946 and of 1948? Elephants fell to their deaths in 1946 and 1948, so what is the difference in the false demarcation of 1947? Authorities and dealers cannot tell the difference. We have heard that only carbon dating can provide the necessary identification. The demarcation is false, so why draw that line? Why not just say, “Pre-1947 and post-1947 ivory will be banned”? We will support the Government if they take that forward. We want to know from the Minister why the Government will not address the antique ivory trade. What is so different?

The remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) were objectionable. She referred to a beautifully worked piece, but it was a beautiful elephant once. She called it artwork. What is artistic about murder? Although those pieces are already in existence, they should no longer be traded. We would introduce a total ban on all ivory, with no excuses and no demarcations —a clear and simple ban. We call for leadership from the Government on this issue.

I agree with Action for Elephants UK, which states:

“The existence of a legal ivory trade serves as a cover for illegal sales of ivory, while continuing to perpetuate the cycle of supply and demand.”

We must see a ban on historical and new ivory, and I call on the Government to close the ivory loophole today and for the Minister to be bold enough to do that, on her watch and while she has the power to make the difference around the globe. Tougher penalties are needed for those who break the law and education campaigns should coincide with that, as well as an amnesty on those that possess ivory in their own homes, so that they can get rid of those products, which are not beautiful artworks but products paid for by the blood of animals.

Let us get on top of the cyber trade too. Let us get on top of the reality of the issue and see a total ban. In our time in Europe, let us use our influence while it remains to see European countries coming behind our leadership on this issue. At the moment, France is ahead of us. We know that the US, too, has tougher penalties. We have to play catch-up. We also have to listen to countries such as Botswana, where the largest elephant population lives, which is also calling for a total ban. We have to listen to those that know best.

This is not just a fight for the future of elephants and rhinos and so many animals—it is a fight against organised criminality. That is why it is so important that we as a country step up and refuse to tolerate any of it. Where there are loopholes and confusion, which is what the Government measures will bring, criminality will continue, because that is what criminals do. I ask the Minister to please join us—the 85% of people across our country and hon. Members today—and call for a total ban. It is on her watch and she has the ability to make the change. I trust she will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right—that is why I alluded to that point in the opening of my speech—but I want to make sure that we are clear in the assertions that are made. I do not recognise some of the statistics to which she refers. The general consensus is that the levels of poaching peaked in 2011 to 2013, but I agree that one poached elephant is one too many. I fully accept that.

What the overall numbers hide is the vastly different experiences across the African continent. Tanzania has been particularly hit hard by poaching, especially in the Selous region, with a reported decline of more than 60,000 elephants, which is a significant part of the population. Conversely, the experience in other parts of Africa, especially in the southern states, is of a stable or growing population. For example, in the Hwange national park in Zimbabwe, the population is growing and the Government report that they are beginning to suffer the problems of overpopulation, including habitat destruction.

The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) referred to the EU. Our Government’s view is that the large and growing elephant populations in southern Africa did not meet the clear, scientific criteria established in CITES for inclusion in appendix I of the convention. Moreover, moving those populations to appendix I would have had no impact on the status of the ivory from those four countries, or the concern that trade might resume in the future. Their existing appendix II listings have an annotation that effectively treats ivory from those countries as if it were in appendix I. Such a move could in fact have been counter-productive. It was strongly thought that Zimbabwe, Namibia and possibly more countries would have taken out a reservation against any move to appendix I. Two countries taking out such a reservation would have resulted in ivory being able to be traded without contravening CITES and so would have potentially reopened commercial trade in new ivory with immediate effect.

A range of solutions is needed to tackle the poaching crisis and CITES, which also covers both fauna and flora, is an important part of that. I recognise that this debate is about the UK ivory trade, but we should be conscious that many species were added to appendix I, including sharks and rosewood. The illegal wildlife trade covers far more than just the ivory to which we are referring today.

I assure hon. Members that the UK was an active participant in discussions to give a clear direction to close national ivory markets where they fuel poaching or illegal trade. That was an outcome we strongly endorse. There was also decisive action to strengthen national ivory action plans—I have met Ministers from China and Vietnam and we have discussed those matters—which set out clear actions for countries to combat ivory trafficking in key markets, with scrutiny of achievements by the CITES community up to and including trade sanctions for inaction.

The current global rules under CITES are that trade in ivory dating from after 1990 is banned. There is no time limit to that. To change that would require a positive decision by two thirds of the CITES parties to embrace trade in ivory, which is not a realistic prospect. The UK has already for a number of years gone further than CITES requirements. We do not permit exports of any ivory tusks, given the very obvious potential for such international trade to be used to launder recently poached ivory tusks.

The rules around what trade in ivory is permitted are only part of the story and how they are enforced is an essential element. Within the UK, the existing legal trade is enforced by the police forces and the Border Force. Ivory is a top priority for the Border Force’s wildlife trafficking team. The petition for today’s debate notes that 40% of UK customs seizures between 2009 and 2014 were ivory, which is 40% of seized wildlife products, not of all items seized by customs. Given the priority and resources that the Border Force target on intercepting illegal ivory, I would expect that to form a significant proportion of their seizures, as the evidence shows.

Border Force has run specific operations targeting ivory in recent years and Operation Quiver, which specifically targeted illegal ivory in the parcel system, won the WWF enforcement operation of the year award last month. The expertise of our Border Force team is held in high regard globally and the UK has recently been asked to lead work at EU level on enforcement action against ivory trafficking. Interpol attended CITES for the first time. I have already met my hon. Friend the Security Minister and we intend to visit the wildlife crime unit early next year to reinforce our belief that this is an important matter that must be tackled.

Within the UK, enforcement is led by various police forces and supported by the national wildlife crime unit. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has provided additional resources in this spending review period to target illegal trade via the internet, which we know is an issue of growing concern. As I say, I intend to visit the unit early next year.

Globally, the UK is a strong supporter of enforcement efforts to combat poaching and trafficking, and we committed £4 million to the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime. The five partner organisations are at the forefront of supporting global enforcement efforts. Interpol is taking an increasingly active role in the cause, and we are partnering with it to focus on intercepting illegal shipments of ivory, rhino horn and other illegal wildlife products. Through those initiatives, we will have a real impact on the volume of trafficked ivory.

The driver for poaching is, of course, the lucrative profits that can be made in trafficking ivory. I learned on my trip to South Africa that somebody can earn in one night what they could earn in five years if they did a different job. It is important to bear that in mind when we think about the economic growth and development that we should be encouraging those countries to pursue. Where possible, we should use our aid to encourage alternatives, but not every country in Africa is eligible for overseas development aid.

Poaching is driven by the demand for ivory products. We must understand and address that problem. We need to raise Asian consumers’ awareness of the devastating impact they have on elephant populations. We need to inform and engage with them, and ultimately change their behaviour. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge showed leadership when he visited Hanoi recently, alongside my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That kind of engagement is a key part of what UK leadership can do.

To achieve that, we need to change the dynamics of the market. We need to reduce not just the availability of ivory, but the acceptability of the trade. That is why in the UK we are looking at our own market. Other countries, such as the US, have taken action. We want concerted international action. Most important, we want China to take action to follow through on its commitment to close its market.

Hon. Members referred to a number of other countries, so it is worth setting out what their plans involve. The US has introduced what it describes as a near-complete ban: a prohibition on trade in items under 100 years old. That is 30 years further back than the limit we have proposed, but it is a rolling date, so it will progressively allow trade in newer items year by year. The US also included a range of exemptions from the ban, including musical instruments and items containing less than 200 grams of ivory if it is less than 50% of the overall item. Those are federal rules that apply to exports and trade between states. Trade within states is a matter for the individual states to legislate on. A small number of states, although some of them are highly populous, have adopted tighter controls along similar lines to the federal controls, but they remain the minority.

We welcome the Chinese Government’s announcement of their intention to close China’s domestic ivory market, and we look forward to hearing more detail about their intentions for the ban. Earlier this year, France announced that it will permit trade in pre-1975 ivory only on a case-by-case basis, although we and others are still seeking clarity on what the criteria for the case-by-case assessment are, so we can understand how restrictive its approach will be. We understand it intends to consult shortly to clarify the rules and exemptions.

I am proud that in September the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans for banning the sale of ivory that is less than 70 years old—dating from 1947. That is an important step. The 1947 date has its foundations in EU regulations, which still remain the overarching legislation for the implementation of CITES in the UK. From a control and enforcement perspective, there are advantages to working with a date that is already used by the rest of the EU and traders to draw a dividing line. We will consult early in the new year on our plans to implement such a ban. I am pleased that it has happened on the watch of this Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Pauline Latham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The Conservative party manifesto commitment —a commitment that I do not think Labour has ever included in its manifestos—is to press for a total ban on ivory sales, and that is part of the action that this policy fulfils.

The currently legal trade is only one part of the picture. We need a truly global response to all aspects of the problem if we are successfully to end the poaching crisis, and the UK leads the way in several of those areas. Just last week, I met CITES secretary-general John Scanlon, who commended the UK’s excellent work in leading the international illegal wildlife trade agenda and cited the 2014 London conference as a turning point for action. We provided financial and practical support to Vietnam to host the recent illegal wildlife trade conference in Hanoi, which built on the 2014 London conference, and we supported its successor in Botswana in 2016. To maintain global momentum, the UK will host the next high-level event in London in 2018.

Two years ago, we launched a £13 million fund to invest in projects around the world that tackle the illegal wildlife trade at its root. In Hanoi, the Secretary of State announced an additional £13 million to fund new measures, doubling our investment. We provide practical support on the ground. The British military trains anti-poaching rangers on the front line in Gabon, which is home to Africa’s largest population of forest elephants. That will be extended to provide training to anti-poaching rangers in other crucial countries such as Malawi. As I said, we continue to work with our partners using the UK Border Force, and the Crown Prosecution Service supports the judicial system in key states such as Kenya and Tanzania. We also support projects in Asia to raise awareness and educate potential consumers about the damage that is being done by demand for a whole range of wildlife products, including ivory.

On artworks, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made some very strong points. She seemed to commit the Labour party to banning leather products, because she suggested that anything made from animals should be banned. We need to think carefully about how artworks in museums are considered. People may not realise that the Lewis chessmen are ivory, but we should consider whether museums should continue to display ivory tusks. That is the kind of thing that we should discourage them from doing.

I need to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, so in conclusion, I can assure—

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way on the question that I asked her directly to answer?

[Dr Coffey]

Very briefly.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister explain why she will not extend the ban from 1947 to an earlier date?

[Dr Coffey]

I heard the hon. Lady’s question and I explained that, so she clearly was not listening.

To clarify, the manifesto commitment is that we will press for a total ban on ivory sales. That means acting on our domestic ivory trade and pressing for truly global and concerted action across all areas necessary to success. That means ensuring more effective enforcement, strengthening criminal justice, tackling the demand that is driving poaching, and supporting communities that are impacted by the effects of poaching. In all those areas, the Government are acting and showing true global leadership. I will ensure that, on my watch, we press on with such measures and continue to act so future generations can enjoy these majestic creatures roaming wild.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me before, so I am well aware of it. I am also aware that it is a matter for the local Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Agency, although DEFRA does have a role in working with IFCA and signing off any proposals. I understand that this particular case is at the consultation stage, so local fishermen should make their views known at this point.

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

The pound has fallen, the cost of imports has risen and Brexit is costing the wine industry £413 million more in imports alone. From Marmitegate to the Toblerone gap, we have seen rising prices across the food industry. Customers are paying more for food while those working in farming and food production have been hit even harder. And it is getting worse. What is the Secretary of State doing to mitigate these factors?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will be aware that we have an incredibly thriving food and farming sector that employs one in eight of us. It is worth more than £100 billion a year to our economy. Our food innovation is second to none: we produce more new food products every year than France and Germany combined. Food inflation continues to be low, and our thriving sector’s exports are improving. They have gone up this year and we are doing everything we can to create a sustainable environment for the future.

[Rachael Maskell]

The reality is that food inflation is at 5%. This is happening on the Secretary of State’s watch. It is her responsibility and her crisis. People are struggling now. The sector is calling for security: security of labour; security in the market; security of trade; and security in knowing the plans for the sector on leaving the EU. Labour can provide the sector with confidence today—we have a clear plan. Why will the Secretary of State not share her plan? Is it because there is no plan?

[Andrea Leadsom]

If I may say so, that was nonsense. Food prices have been dropping after peaking in 2008, and they do move up and down. On the hon. Lady’s point about the resilience of the food and drink sector, exports this year are well up on last year and growth in the sector is booming. We are doing everything we can on food innovation and getting young people into apprenticeships in increasingly high-technology jobs. This is a well-organised sector with great potential.

Soil Health

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Bone. I start by thanking the Environmental Audit Committee for the rigour with which it has conducted its inquiry. It has produced an excellent, evidence-based report. The Government should take heed of its warnings and embrace its solutions. The qualities and properties of our soils are so finely balanced, as we have heard this afternoon. Our understanding of that has led in the past to the degradation of soil and peat bog erosion in the lowlands and the highlands, and it has had a wider impact on biodiversity, natural habitats, and flooding and water management. It now presents issues around public health, climate change and food security. The call for an effective plan with clear targets, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) made at the last Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions and again in her speech today, is the issue of today’s debate.

Before I move on, I must mention the fascinating speech of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). It reminded me of David Bellamy in my youth talking about soil, and the interest he created in me. She was right, as were other speakers, to talk about the enthusiasm with which farmers talk about this agenda. They are changing their practices to see better quality soil.

The Paris agreement has set the pace for the world on how we need to address the matter. The cap on temperature rises—it is frightening to see a 1.5 °C rise in global temperatures—will determine how we farm our land. With a 1 °C rise in temperature, we could see a 30% loss in peat. Without action, we could see half of our peat depleted. Likewise, we are losing 2.2 million tonnes of soil each year in the UK, but it takes 100 years to grow back just 1 cm of top soil. Action is needed now to ensure that we have sustainable soils by 2030. I have heard that with current farming techniques, much of our land has only 30 harvests left due to the depletion in soil quality. That puts our food security back under the spotlight. We have not seen the action that we would expect since the signing by Sir David King at COP 21 of the agreement to move forward on this issue. We have had a wasted year.

I have read the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s work, and it is worrying. There is too much dependency on voluntary codes that are not delivering the required change for carbon sequestration back into our soils, particularly in the lowland peatlands. We are told that the answers will be found in plans yet to see the light of day. My concern is that we need a framework now. That will ensure that we restore soil health in a comprehensive, managed way. How will the Government monitor soils comprehensively? What will the drivers be to re-carbonise soils? What year-on-year targets will the Government set to ensure that they fulfil their obligations? Even the Committee on Climate Change is worried about the Government’s dependency on a narrow agenda to reach anywhere near what is needed.

Members have mentioned many good examples of farming practices, including changing crop mixes, planting grasses, using green manures, investing in agro-forestation schemes, moving to organic farming and using winter cover crops to secure the soil. There have been good examples of re-wetting peatland in the lowlands. That is so important in the fens, where peats are rapidly drying. We have to look at the agenda, but we also have to question why any form of burning or draining soils continues. We heard about that in the grouse moor shooting debate a couple of weeks back. Surely it is time for action to be taken.

We also need a proper analysis of the state of our soil. We have heard how Wales has put a progressive, systematic process in place. The Committee’s report has drawn that out as best practice. We would be wise to follow the actions of Labour’s initiative, which uses a tiny proportion of rural payments to undertake the work.

I was struck by what Professor Chris Collins said in the report. He talked about the need to define what we mean by “soil health”. He said:

“There needs to be clear policy direction, evidence based, that defines what soil health is, and critically the measure to be used to evaluate it.”

It is so important that we put those things in place.

The report also draws out the need to link monitoring to other important biodiversity measures, such as fauna, micro-diversity and soil structure. While ad hoc data gathering from farmers’ soil testing regimes could add to data, its methodology is not scientific enough to provide the necessary data, so I hope the Government will look again at that. Accurate auditing leads to effective mitigation planning and interventions. That leads me to ask the Minister, how will her Government implement a programme to see a 0.4% annual increase in soil carbon levels? How will she help farmers to achieve that? How will she assist some farmers to go even further? What interventions will the Government make to ensure that that happens? Specific timelines are needed now, not just warm words.

When will we be able to see the UK peatland strategy? I know that we have seen delay with the 25-year plans that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) says should be co-joined. When will the strategy come to light? What measures will be in the peatland plan in particular to ensure that lowland peat is restored and is performing its vital role in carbon retention?

The report was published before the referendum, so I want to ask the Minister about the steps the Government will take on leaving the EU to assist farmers in making the transition to improved soil management, perhaps by converting to organic farming. Will they have access to the five-year conversion and maintenance payments, in the light of the fact that we could have left the EU by 2019? If there is no certainty over the next couple of years, the Government are unlikely to see many applications for transition. What future support will they provide for those in transition now? What sticks and carrots will they make available to make the necessary changes in the future? Answers are needed, because farmers are making choices for their futures now.

The three good statutory management requirements used for cross-compliance have failed to provide the necessary incentive to drive soil quality improvement. It is clear that the scheme has failed to properly audit farms, and there are loopholes in the system. What will the Minister’s priorities be in replacing that part of the rural development programme? As we have heard, we also need to examine the impact of anaerobic digestion. I will not go further into that debate due to the time, but I want to mention the issue of offsetting floods. Soil has so many important qualities in achieving that, so it is important that we also examine it as part of flood management.

I also want to touch on the issue of contaminated land, not least because my constituency was drawn out in the plan and because the funding is inadequate in the light of the contaminated land capital grants being removed. There are a number of contaminated sites in my constituency. They are some of the biggest development sites in the whole of Europe. We heard from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) how important that is, and I was enlightened by what the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) said about Ministry of Defence sites, particularly as my local barracks has also been listed for closure and may not be suitable for development. It is so important that we support local authorities in their objectives to ensure that they deal with contamination, and put the proper funding in place.

I have asked a number of questions today but we know how important soil is and how important it is to put funding behind that. Most important of all, we are living through an environmental crisis. Soil is a precious element and therefore it is incumbent on Parliament to make sure that we get the right soil health strategy in place now.

Circular Economy: Leftover Paint

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for putting on the agenda this important issue of the circular economy—important to debate in itself, and important in the context of where leftover paint fits into that agenda. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for her contribution, which outlined the importance we should give to some of these niche areas, because the principles behind them then obviously expand to so many other areas.

A startling amount of paint is left over—55 million litres a year, which I understand is equivalent to 20 Olympic swimming pools-worth of paint. That is a baffling thought. I want to put on record my thanks to PaintCare and the British Coatings Federation for their interest in the subject. They are really putting an aggressive agenda forward on how we draw the reuse of leftover paint into the circular economy, and on the opportunities before us, which we are debating this afternoon. There are real opportunities in the reuse and remanufacturing of paint.

I always think that any debate on the circular economy has to begin with the issue of consumption. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said this afternoon, offers that encourage us to overbuy clearly move things in the wrong direction. We also know that there are issues around the size of containers, because they are so large. Price is not proportionate to volume in those containers, so we often buy the larger pot of paint, just in case we need it and, obviously, to see the same colour match, as opposed to buying smaller quantities, which is de-incentivised by the size of the containers. That in itself is an issue that the paint industry could look at. Again, I ask for the Minister’s comments on that, and perhaps on how the Government could help the paint industry look at how to reduce the amount of leftover paint. We know that this is an issue right across industry, and hits on so many other areas too.

We recognise the incredible work of PaintCare in trying to educate the public about the use and volume of paint. PaintCare has a calculator for use on its website, which I had a look at, to help customers make better choices about volumes of paint. We can all benefit from that, because it means a reduction in cost for ourselves as customers, and it provides very useful advice using the technology that is available.

There are other principles to look at, and this afternoon I want to focus on the opportunities we have to reuse and remanufacture paint. We all understand that too much paint is being disposed of at landfill sites or going to incineration, which clearly has a detrimental impact on the environment. Therefore, it is really important that we ask why that is happening and what steps we have to take to move the agenda forward not just in generality, but by having targets year by year.

First, many have identified the fact that far too few household waste and recycling centres accept paint. There should be a universal approach, not a postcode lottery. Will the Minister therefore look at how she may support local authorities to ensure that all centres accept paint that has not been used? Having that postcode lottery is detrimental to the whole recycling business. We know how there are different rules from local authority to local authority. We press the Minister to move forward and to have a universal system, so that we may all understand what gets recycled and how we can dispose of things in the best way possible, and so that we have that link back to reuse and remanufacturing. Everything should be collected in the best way possible, and not put into landfill or sent for incineration.

I was struck by a meeting I had recently with Tetra Pak, the manufacturer, looking at how it disposes of its materials. It is a unique manufacturing sector, and it now recycles 100% of its products through a process that begins with universal collection. Tetra Pak itself, as an industry, started to put its own banks in place for waste products. It then worked increasingly with local authorities to incorporate Tetra Pak products into kerbside collection. It continued, where kerbside collection points were not being taken up by local authorities, by having Tetra Pak’s own collection, so there is now 100% coverage of opportunity.

That seems to be a sensible way of introducing a universal approach, but clearly we want to see local authorities having the responsibility, with support from Government, to take waste products. There are of course issues about storage, but they can be addressed. What Tetra Pak does with the products, once collection is done, is carry out its own remanufacture of 100% of the materials—the aluminium, the plastics and the pulp of cardboard is remanufactured by Tetra Pak and put into other products. That just shows what can be done, and we urge the Minister to look at that.

The UK clearly needs to ensure that there is continued research into the chemical composition of paint and how it can be reused. We know that the paint that is currently remanufactured is mainly water-based paint, and therefore we need to look at the science behind paint to ensure that we can recycle an increasing amount of the material. That is an important part of this—putting money into research is so important in the whole waste sector. Likewise, there is an onus to deal with packaging for paint—the paint containers can often be appropriately recycled, but at the moment they themselves end up in landfill, which is a blight on our environment.

We have heard that only 1% of paint products are reused and 1% are remanufactured. Just 2% are reutilised; 98% go to waste. That is a very poor statistic, and having a 5% obligation on local authorities through their procurement processes would be a good way to start to move the agenda forward.

We also have to look at the opportunities for reusing paint. We have heard that there are lots of opportunities for local authorities to be in touch with local projects and voluntary sector organisations that could really benefit from that as opposed to having to budget for paint. If such projects are properly managed, they could be scaled up nationally, not just focused on locally, to support voluntary organisations and other community interest companies to reuse paint.

I observed a couple of weeks ago a fresh pot of paint being used on external boarding around a building site and thought, “Actually, that could be reused or recycled paint that has been collected from elsewhere.” We know that there is a lot of waste, and that adds to the on-costs of projects. Dialogue could therefore take place not just with the voluntary sector but with the construction trade, where there could be real opportunities in looking at how organisations could use remanufactured and leftover paint. If we are going to see an expansion in the construction industry, there is certainly an opportunity to reuse such products and ensure that they do not go to landfill.

People probably do not know much about remanufactured paint, but it is around 25% to 30% reused paint, to which new paint is added. There is an opportunity for remanufactured paint to be available on the market, perhaps at a reduced cost. That could address some issues around inequality and help to move paint on an industrial scale. There are opportunities that we can look at to address that issue.

I want to raise the issue of why paint ends up in incinerators or landfill at all. What I will say about paint applies to so many other products; this is about the whole approach that the Government need to take—whether it is about organic material or manufactured goods—to the whole issue of the circular economy, and why it is so important to mainstream the circular economy into manufacturing processes, everyday public sector use and the way we think and operate as a country.

Yesterday, in another debate, I mentioned the research that is being undertaken into how we mitigate sending anything whatever to landfill and move away from incineration. The techniques of chemically breaking down materials or autoclaving them with high-pressure steam enable waste products to be separated into raw products in different ways, so that a far higher proportion of the components of the original material can be put to alternative use. Those components can be put back into manufacturing processes or even put into energy production. I know that work is being undertaken on how paint can be reused in products such as load-bearing concrete, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place. It is important that we look at all options for repurposing paint.

Investment in research on those processes is vital to prevent so much more from ending up in landfill. As I mentioned yesterday, the Biorenewables Development Centre just outside York, a project that has sprung from the University of York, is looking at how we can mitigate waste altogether. That is of huge interest to me, and I know that it will also interest the Minister, given her background. I urge her to look at the opportunities that are being created through the research that is being carried out and try to bring that agenda back into the mainstream.

Ahead of next week’s autumn statement, I note the call from the British Coatings Federation and PaintCare for remanufactured paint not to be subject to VAT. Not only has VAT been paid previously on part of the product, but that would result in a narrowing of price margins between remanufactured paint and new paint. That seems a sensible incentive, and I trust that the Minister will raise that with the Treasury ahead of the autumn statement.

This has been an interesting debate. I have to say that I did not know we could debate the reuse of paint in such depth, but it springs into so many other agendas. I trust that the Minister will embrace the circular economy, as the Opposition do. I know that she has some issues with it, including its name, but it is being promoted heavily and the concepts are good and right for our future. It is right for our environment, after all. I therefore trust that she can move on from that position to ensure that we see the research and long-term funding that are needed.

I make one final plea in light of the uncertainty about the future and our relationship with Europe. Many of the research projects that are currently being carried out are funded by the EU and involve relationships that have been built between academia and industry across Europe. I would like to see the Minister get behind those projects and ensure not only that they continue, even if that takes us beyond 2020, but that those relationships are sustained into the future and that we will be able to take forward many more initiatives to ensure that our environment is safe.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for leading this debate on the circular economy for leftover paint. I am off script now, but I also want to thank my officials for doing their best to produce an interesting speech. This issue clearly matters, but let us try to spice it up a bit with some real candour.

We have all been through the ritual when doing DIY of going to B&Q, Homebase or whatever, doing the painting and ending up with half a tin of paint that simply is not used. Being the good people that we are, we do not like to throw anything away, because we may need to touch it up again later. That has led to the situation that has already been described. The average UK household has six cans of leftover paint stored in their home, and surveys show that people buy more than they need. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) that a lot of focus needs to be put on consumers thinking about what they actually need to paint the rooms that they are looking to decorate. I am afraid I do not think a website will particularly help with that, so there is a lot to be said for retailers and manufacturers being proactive in their discussions with customers and promotion of products.

Only a small proportion of leftover paint is remanufactured, despite the economic and environmental benefits that it is suggested that could deliver. The all-party sustainable resource group and the all-party parliamentary group on manufacturing have produced some interesting reports, including the “Triple Win” report, which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) co-authored. PaintCare’s report “Creating a circular economy for leftover decorative paint in the UK” was launched about a year ago. Both those reports offer suggestions about how to increase the opportunity for this market.

Like others, I do not really like the phrase “circular economy”—I am more into thinking about being resource efficient—but I accept that it has become the lingua franca. There are opportunities to make money; one person’s waste can be another person’s raw materials. It is important that we do our best to make best use of materials and resources and keep them in circulation for longer, wherever that makes sense for the environment, the economy and society as a whole. I would argue that the market and businesses already get that, especially in an age when precious resources are increasingly scarce and regulatory frameworks and fiscal challenges promote the reuse of products rather than the use of virgin raw materials.

I accept that if we are to achieve the transition to a circular economy, innovation is essential—not only the development of efficient new business models but the innovations to which the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred. I will bring to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy the research project and the institute that she mentioned, but she will be aware of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s comments about Horizon 2020 projects and his intention for the United Kingdom to remain engaged in those—and indeed our own funding streams—on the basis of value for money.

[Rachael Maskell]

One of the concerns from both academia and from where there is applied research is that 2020 is only just round the corner. People are now looking beyond 2020, to what their futures are. Although I heard what the Chancellor said, it is important that we look to the future and give further guarantees to ensure that projects continue.

[Dr Coffey]

I recognise what the hon. Lady says, but it is not unusual for a Government to talk about the spending envelope for which they have responsibility. I am not privy to what will be in the autumn statement next week or in future Budgets, but given that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has talked keenly about the need for future investment and having innovation as a key priority, I am sure the hon. Lady and I will both be listening with interest to what he has to say next week.

The hon. Lady also referred to VAT. She knows it goes against EU law to not charge VAT. A considerable battle was eloquently championed by her hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), among others, to try to secure zero rates for certain products, but who knows what the future holds once we leave the EU or what the future of VAT will be?

[Dr Coffey]

The good news is that this Government have successfully created more jobs than the rest of the European Union put together over the last six years. I am not aware of the unemployment forecasts the hon. Lady is referring to. I have no doubt that new and efficient profit-making business models will create jobs. The Government are currently negotiating with the rest of the European Union on the circular economy package, so there is an element of the regulatory framework that may create incentives. However, Governments often create regulations that prevent the circular economy from functioning as effectively as the markets coming up with those opportunities. Often, regulation gets in the way.

In DEFRA we have been working constructively with organisations such as the British Coatings Federation on making better use of leftover paint, including identifying potential regulatory barriers to its recycling and remanufacture and how those might be overcome. We welcome the federation’s voluntary initiative, PaintCare, which aims to promote the reuse or remanufacturing of about 20 million litres of paint that would otherwise end up being disposed of. It is good to see the paint industry seeking to resolve this waste problem through creative thinking and working in partnership.

As the PaintCare initiative has developed, DEFRA has been looking at the regulatory barriers. As part of that, the Environment Agency is providing detailed guidance to determine the parameters within which materials such as leftover paint can meet end-of-waste criteria, through its IsItWaste tool. The agency will continue to work with such programmes and businesses to facilitate the development of operations to encourage further reuse of valuable materials.

We are aware of the challenges with many household waste recycling centres not accepting paint for recycling. The PaintCare report points out that councils face various challenges with that. DEFRA is engaged in regular discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government about providing effective household waste and recycling services, but it is for local authorities to decide the best disposal options for paint and other materials, based on what options and facilities are available locally and what the market generates.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I was about to answer the hon. Lady’s point about the postcode lottery and wanting a universal system. She gave the interesting example of how Tetra Pak, which is subject to elements of extended producer responsibility, came forward with its special process to try to make sure that as many Tetra Pak cartons as possible are collected. The EPR principle does not currently apply to paint, but perhaps it should. Instead of putting the onus on—dare I say it?— councils and central Government, perhaps the paint manufacturers themselves should think about how they start to ensure that paint is collected in every local authority area, which would then help them to reuse it in remanufacturing and similar.

On pricing, I was surprised when I suddenly detected some conservative notes from the hon. Member for York Central. She is absolutely right that one of the best ways to shift remanufactured paint would be for it to be cheaper than standard paint, and people can feel virtuous about it as well. I recognise that that is not as straightforward as it sounds, because the process needs investment and so on. Nevertheless, there are ways to encourage people to do things, often by pricing.

Through WRAP, guidance is provided to local authorities, including options for best practice when dealing with paint through reuse schemes such as Community RePaint, which I am sure hon. Members are aware of. It is a UK-wide network of more than 60 community-run paint reuse projects. However, the numbers are limited and quite a lot of them are concentrated in certain parts of the country. Perhaps we will want to consider not only encouraging manufacturers but good local schemes to come forward.

[Rachael Maskell]

I want to come back to the relationship between central Government and local authorities, because we clearly have a problem at the moment. Only 2% is reused or remanufactured, yet we know the potential in the industry is huge. What interventions will the Government make to support local authorities to be able to increase beyond the 2%?

[Dr Coffey]

To be candid, I am not sure that central Government are going to do anything apart from what I have already described in relation to the WRAP guidance and the Environment Agency. I personally believe we should try to reduce the amount of paint coming into the system in the first place. We need a better consumer understanding of how much paint is needed to paint a room. People should be able to take the room measurements to the shop and easily calculate how many litres are needed. That is the best way to prevent the problem in the first place.

[Rachael Maskell]

The circular economy is not an either/or strategy; it is both. It is about having active interventions to drive an agenda forward. We have a real problem with paint, as we have heard so eloquently put this afternoon. The Government standing back and saying they will make no further interventions means that local authorities will never have the means to move the agenda forward, so I press the Minister again about what interventions she is prepared to make to progress the circular economy around this issue.

[Dr Coffey]

I have already answered the hon. Lady. I have said what I was going to say. From what she has said, I take it she agrees that perhaps having extended producer responsibility on the paint industry might be the way to go. That is not currently being considered by the EU in the circular economy package, but perhaps we will consider it when we leave the EU. The concept of extended producer responsibility is about trying to reduce waste and recovering the cost of waste. The Government have supported a pilot paint reuse project in Cheshire. We have provided more than £30,000 in match funding through the innovation in waste prevention fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to resume the debate. I was pointing out how the Government have supported a pilot paint reuse project in Cheshire with more than £30,000 of match funding through the innovation and waste prevention fund. That project involves local charities and work with the local recycling centres and housing associations to increase paint donation and minimise disposal. The provision of clearly marked paint collection containers, the training of recycling centre staff to sort paint and advise the public, and an awareness-raising campaign led to 23.5 tonnes of paint being collected, which is more than double the original target of 11.4 tonnes. The reuse rate was also much higher than anticipated, with 78% of the donated paint—more than 18 tonnes—being reused and only 22% needing to be disposed of.

WRAP will publish a summary of the project and lessons learnt along with a video case study next year. That shows there was an opportunity for other people to use the leftover product. In that case it was housing associations, but in other cases it could be the construction trade, to which the hon. Member for York Central referred earlier.

A question was asked about Government procurement. Government buying standards do not currently include remanufactured paint, and DEFRA and other Departments do not purchase a great deal of paint directly; contractors who undertake work on the Government’s behalf tend to purchase the paint. Overall, the Government’s policy commitment is to buy sustainably, which is set out in “Greening Government Commitments”, and Government procurement officers will take account of that when buying more sustainable and efficient products and getting suppliers to understand the need to reduce the impacts of the supply chain.

Industry-led initiatives such as PaintCare are important if we are to achieve the vision of a more resource-efficient circular economy.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will not.

We must make the best use of resources in a way that supports growth and protects the environment and human health, as has already been said. The industry’s proactive action so far should be supported by an efficient and effective regulatory framework. That is why we are working with the industry to look at regulatory barriers. As I have already indicated, the Government are undertaking some projects through WRAP or the Environment Agency to try to stimulate admittedly modest changes, but I genuinely believe that the real impetus will come from the industry, whether that is about establishing a wider network for recovering paint or helping consumers generate less waste in the first place.

This has been an important debate. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge will be delighted to know that I have started to use the phrase “the circular economy”. I recognise what she said: it is sometimes limiting. However, I assure her and others that businesses—especially high-value businesses—are clear that recycling and recovering materials is an important part of helping the environment, and it makes sense commercially. To that end, I thank all those who participated in the debate.

Draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I note the consultation exercise on the draft regulations undertaken by the Welsh Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the responses to that.

The draft regulations will amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, which replaced the original environmental permitting framework that Labour introduced in 2007. That framework in turn updated the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000. As we have heard, the 2010 regulations have been amended some 15 times.

The ambition of the regulations is to require operators of industrial and waste activities to protect the environment and human health. That is achieved with a tight regulatory framework that requires operators to obtain a permit to manage their operations. The draft regulations are focused on tidying up the amendments made over the past six years and do not detract from the requirements set out in the EU directives. The draft regulations cover everything from asbestos, volatile organic compounds, ionising radioactive substances, landfill waste, groundwater management and water discharges to waste from the extractive industries, disposal of batteries, industrial emissions and pollution prevention and control, and energy efficiency. Those are covered by 15 EU directives.

No activity on the disposal of those noxious substances should take place without the relevant permissions being granted. The Opposition believe it is vital that the Government continue to focus on how to reduce waste from all of those pollutants while actively seeking to use the research arena to find alternative materials or substances that can be used to reduce pollutants, to actively draw more into the circular economy and to reduce consumption of those pollutants. On a recent visit to Dunnington, just outside my constituency, I observed how the Biorenewables Development Centre—BDC—makes provision for applied research into the reuse and repurposing of natural materials. The Government’s scale of ambition to focus on future alternatives has been seriously lacking. Investment in research, such as at the BDC, and scaling that to industrial processes needs urgent attention so that a real difference can be made to the levels of waste.

Far more also needs to be done to remove and dispose of current pollutants, such as asbestos. We know from the Asbestos in Schools campaign the impact that asbestos has on the environment, and that teachers and the sensitive lungs of children continue to be exposed to fibres each time a staple is extracted from a board, for example. The draft regulations sadly do not address the opportunity, nor expedite vital work, for reduction in pollutants, but merely address the disposal of waste as things currently stand. Alongside disposal, we must continue to identify alternative opportunities to reduce consumption. At the same time, it is vital that the environment and those working in the waste industry receive maximum protection. This is a missed opportunity for a Government who have developed a narrative that they want to improve the environment, as these regulations do not reflect that ambition and just maintain current practice.

The Opposition note the separate consultation, undertaken as part of the preparation for these regulations, concerning the crushing of fluorescent tubes and the additional restrictions put in place, the management of the materials from that process and the recommendation that mobile crushing units are now to be subject to a permit regime. That seems to be a sensible way forward. The regulations are expected to simplify and consolidate regulations, and thus cut costs to businesses, voluntary organisations and public sector bodies. That should make the framework easier to understand and simpler to use. The Opposition also note the change in permissions for the Canal & River Trust, and believe they are also sensible, although their progression must be monitored.

The draft regulations will provide for a single permit for work on a particular site, and each element will be controlled according to risk. That is a sensible tidying-up exercise that the Opposition support. It will reduce the work for the applicant for a permit and administration costs, yet will not see the watering down of any environmental protections; it is purely administrative.

The Opposition are satisfied with the processes outlined for the granting, revocation and surrendering of a permit and any variation of the rules. Enforcement criteria are clearly set out under the EU directives under which these regulations sit. There is no latitude by which the Government can relax the environmental standards required, nor would we want them to in future—quite the reverse. The appropriate regulator has a duty to enforce the standards and, where necessary, issue an enforcement notice, should the directives and subsequent regulations be breached, or in serious cases, a suspension notice stating the action that needs to be taken and the time period in which it should be taken. Should a penalty need to be paid, it must be or a criminal offence will have been committed, and the outcome of that will be determined in a court of law.

Low-risk activities will be undertaken without a permit, but one will be required for areas of high risk. The Opposition want to ensure that careful monitoring takes place, so that any cumulative impact of multiple low-risk activity is recorded. How will the Government undertake that? In addition, the draft regulations will require the Secretary of State to order a review of the regulations. Will the Minister state when the Secretary of State plans to do that, especially in the light of negotiations around leaving the EU, since the draft regulations state that the first report must be published before the end of December 2019? Can she set out whether she envisages any changes being made to the regimes as set out with the transposition of the directives or the regulations themselves on the UK leaving the EU? How will she consult on that? I note that the new regulations are due to come into force on 1 January 2017.

Air Quality

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend raises a wide range of issues. Let me try to pick up on them. In a parliamentary question, he rightly revealed the number of councils where there are issues. I take this seriously. In my constituency, there are two air quality management areas. That is why I want to work with local councils to do what we can to tackle action locally. Of course the Government will work on issues to tackle air quality nationally, but we need local action. Powers are already available, under the Transport Act 2000, for councils to take appropriate measures, and I will encourage them to do that. Again, that is why we are encouraging councils to apply for help from the air quality fund.

We are all aware of the issue with Volkswagen and diesel vehicles. We have been pressing for updated COPERT factors. The spreadsheet is exceptionally complicated. It is the biggest spreadsheet I have ever seen in my life. As I used to be chartered accountant, I can assure the House that I have probably seen more than most.

It is a complex situation, and we are working through it. We are coming up with what we can think of to try to tackle this issue, but I genuinely believe that we need targeted interventions rather than use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Labour Government introduced fiscal incentives that encouraged people to move to diesel. I am not going to complain about that. We are where we are, and the Government and local government must all pull together because we care about the people we represent. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: air quality is the top priority, which is why it is my No. 1 priority in government.

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

Up to 50,000 people die prematurely each year in the UK as a direct result of air pollution, and many more suffer from respiratory disease. This is a crisis and a national scandal—deaths that would have been avoidable if the Government had taken action, and suffering on a mass scale, most prevalent in the most deprived communities. Nitrogen dioxide is a silent killer, but Labour Members will not be silent about this.

Yesterday’s damning judgment in the High Court shamed this Government, who were told to put an air quality plan in place in 2010. Six and a half years later and following two further judgments in the High Court, the Government have been found wanting. The World Health Organisation and the European Union recognise how serious air pollution is. That is why yesterday Justice Garnham condemned the Government’s poor estimates on emission levels—even after the Volkswagen scandal—and their slow response to addressing high emissions. Urgency is needed.

I thank ClientEarth for taking the action as there is no time to waste on tackling this issue, as Labour would have done. We cannot afford to allow this to continue or to shift the blame on to councils. This is negligence.

I therefore ask: will the Government guarantee that, instead of creating just five clean air zones, they will now put in place a network of zones across all 37 out of the 43 areas with high emission levels? Why have they wasted time and resources fighting court cases, instead of fighting air pollution? The High Court judge condemned the Government’s delay in reducing ambient nitrogen dioxide levels. How soon will the Government have in place a comprehensive plan on air quality? How will fuel emission measurements now proceed? Will the Government guarantee that, in leaving the EU, they will not water down air quality standards, and how will this be policed? Will the Government introduce a clean air Act, which Labour has done in the past and will do in the future? Will the Government now clean up their act and clean up our air?

[Dr Coffey]

As I am trying show in the tone of my response to this urgent question, this really is a top priority. It is not straightforward. We produced a national air-quality plan based on the best available evidence at the time. We now have new factors, and we are updating the model. We are responding to the needs that we have. I have pointed out that a framework is already out for consultation and councils can do this now if they wish. We are mandating. We need to look carefully at the evidence and what the model says about where we mandate further.

Leaving the EU has absolutely nothing to do with our determination to improve air quality in this country. There is no need for new legislation; we already have powers in place, and we are consulting on new powers.

We have already reduced nitrogen dioxide by 41% in the last 10 years. We are still taking action to do that. Let us not get into the blame game; otherwise, we could go into the history of Labour and what the Labour Government did on diesel in the first place. That is not worth while. What matters is that we pull together and address this issue.

Global Biodiversity

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. This has been a fantastic and detailed debate. I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) not only for bringing her interest and expertise to the debate but for championing the relationship between natural capital and development, and its importance to the sustainability of this planet.

I first want to make an interjection about the species that I champion in York, the Tansy beetle. This year, its number grew substantially, despite York’s being under floodwater for several months. We have so much to learn about the behaviour of these species and what happens there. I am trying to grow the Tansy plant at home to help that species be even more productive in the future.

Last year was a very important year for us all. Not only were we signatories to the UN sustainable development goals, but we had the agreement in Paris on climate change. Both are very important indeed for challenging the real issues facing our planet at this time. Often in this place, we involve ourselves in debating the minutiae of operational processes, as opposed to taking a step back and looking at the big issues of our time and the global crises we are facing in this era. Therefore, it is a shame that there are not more parliamentarians here. I trust that this is the beginning of a process, not the end.

There are 169 targets that came from the 17 sustainable development goals, addressing issues such as climate action, life above the water—on land—and life below the water. What we have learned from these processes is that we alone in isolation will not make a difference. It is in the strong global partnerships we form that ambition can be realised.

The most important reason for staying in the EU is that it gives us an influential voice. Now that we have a determination to take another path, it is important for the Government to make sure we have that voice in the future. I call on the Minister today to say how we will have a voice on that global stage to ensure sustainability in the longer term. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) was making with regard to fishing policy. Fish do not stay static in waters; they move. Therefore, it is so important that we have a seat at the table and a voice in that debate.

As we look at the global challenges that we face, we know that the environment is often at the heart of those issues—whether it is about population migration, for instance, or what is happening to our planet at this time. Our population has multiplied five times since the start of the last century. We know that we have got to address how we are consuming our planet at this time. We are using up 1.6 planets-worth of resources every year. That is not sustainable. We have to take a different direction if we are to be sustainable into the future.

I have to question the Minister again about the policies that are being pursued by her Department—for instance, over trade. Why, rather than focusing locally, are we trotting halfway around the world to build stronger trade relationships with emerging economies, as that increases our carbon footprint and therefore the damage that can be done to our planet? We need to ask challenging questions about what we are doing at the moment.

Biological diversity is a huge global asset. The interlinking of each element is so delicately balanced, as we have heard in today’s debate. The lack of prioritisation of the importance of this issue is seen as a serious threat to specific species and the whole ecosystem. That is why, 24 years ago, the convention on biological diversity moved things forward, acknowledging that we need to be putting things in order. That is why the Aichi targets, of which we have heard so much today, have set out the global framework for moving biodiversity forwards and are so important to ensure sustainability in future. Those 20 targets drill down to another 114 more specific actions—again, targets and actions coming out of global plans. We need to respond with our UK biodiversity action plan.

Around the globe, nations have put together their plans—high on ambition, but delivery makes the difference. It is so important for us to ensure that we can deliver and, obviously, we have heard about the serious risks that we will not now deliver on the plans by 2020. That is deeply concerning in a developed country, that we cannot put that in order. That is why the report that stimulated today’s debate, the “Living Planet Report”, by WWF and ZSL, and earlier this year the “State of Nature” report made startling reading. We do not have time to waste, we cannot delay and we cannot say that we missed our targets because we did not do the right actions, because the next generations will not forgive us for that. Therefore, it is so essential that we move forward.

We have been failing the targets. We want to know how we will complete the network of marine protection areas. How will we ensure that we have planted enough trees? What is happening to our air quality, with 50,000 people in our own country dying each year from poor air quality? And our soil has only around 32 harvests left to sustain the future. So we have real concerns moving forward.

The fact is that where we are, the analysis has been done, the reports have been made, the targets have been set and monitoring processes are being put in place, but the issue is political ambition and delivery. That is where my concern sits. If we are honest, this House saw the movement towards the Climate Change Act 2008, put forward by Labour, which was really momentum building, moved the whole issue forward and delivered a world-changing agreement on the back of it. That legislation was leading the world, but we have not seen the same on biodiversity and we are certainly not seeing the same importance being placed on that agenda by the Government.

That really concerns me, and my biggest call today is that this agenda is mainstreamed into every area of departmental and Government work. We may look at issues in their silos, when it is very easy to say, “That’s a DEFRA issue,” but as the right hon. Member for Meriden said, this one links in with development, industrial strategy and, as we have heard, energy strategy. It is so important that we mainstream this agenda into the future.

The reality, and another concern I have, is that we are a consumerist society, which is a focus of what I am looking at. How do we address consumption? We cannot keep consuming our planet, living our lives and saying, “These are our rights!” without serious consequences for generations to come. We therefore have to look at how we take that forward. That is why I was disappointed that the Minister did not embrace issues such as the circular economy when she appeared before the Select Committee. We have to move these issues forward—it is so important.

I have been heartened, I have to say, by the Welsh Labour Government addressing the issue of how we change behaviour and move things forward in their Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This Act is about improving the social and economic environment, as well as cultural wellbeing in Wales. It is the first serious attempt to see driven changes in behaviour towards the wider environment. We have also heard today about Scotland and about putting these issues at the heart of economic strategy.

Loss of natural capital impacts on so many things—not just our air, land and sea, but our health and wellbeing, and our communities and livelihoods. With poor air quality and 5.5 million people dying prematurely, we also know that 663 million people do not have access to clean and safe water. In the UK, soil degradation is leading to 2.2 million tonnes of lost soil every year and, across the globe, only 15% of soil provides the quality needed to grow our crops. Therefore, we have to drive change forward.

In concluding, I want to say first, as many colleagues have already said, that the 25-year plan has been delayed and that, although we know a framework is on the way, what my hon. Friends have said is absolutely right: the integration with farming is absolutely essential. There is no point having two parallel plans. We need to move the plans into one, so that we get the balances right and so that we understand what the real issues are. That is a first step that the Government could take towards mainstreaming such issues as biodiversity.

Secondly, I want the Minister to give feedback on how she is mainstreaming this issue right across Government. If she has not been to date, how will she take that forward?

Thirdly, also called for across the House today, we can work together across the House on moving our biodiversity system forward. The reality is that the planet is so fragile, and the Government do not have a monopoly of wisdom on these issues, but if we work together we might just have the solutions needed to change behaviour. If change of behaviour starts at home, then every single parliamentarian has a responsibility back in their constituencies to lead things to a new place. We have even more responsibility in this place. Will the Minister therefore be prepared for a cross-party working group to look specifically at how we move the whole agenda around biodiversity forward to ensure that we do not miss our targets? If Government miss their targets, we are all affected, and the next generation is too. On those three requests, I would like an answer from the Minister.

Driven Grouse Shooting

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Westminster Hall

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.

I thank those who took the time to petition their MP about the subject of driven grouse shooting, whether they are among the 123,000 people calling for a ban on it or the 20,000 people who expressed a different view. I am sure that all of them have done their own research into the subject. Therefore, I take issue with the insults that have been made against those who choose to petition their MP through the internet.

I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions today—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I think the hon. Lady’s remarks referred to me. The only point I was making was that, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said, if people come to an MP’s surgery and talk to their MP, or if they write in their own terms, one is much more prepared to listen to them than to people who have simply ticked a box and then an email is automatically dispatched, maybe in the middle of the night.

[Rachael Maskell]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, do not make assumptions about the research that constituents make in order to make their point to their MP. All have an opportunity to petition; it is a formal mechanism that this Parliament recognises as a means of forwarding debate. Therefore, it is the duty of this House to respect that process.

Clearly, this debate is needed. There are areas on which everyone can—

[Andrew Bingham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am going to move on. There are areas on which everyone can agree, such as the need to ensure that raptor protection, hydrological management and the wider management of moorland are sustainable. However, there are clearly areas of disagreement, too.

Labour believes, above all, that more research is needed and that is certainly our biggest call on the Government today. However, we also believe that there are some key principles that need to be considered urgently and some areas where the Government must take action now.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Rachael Maskell]

If I may, I am just going to make my opening remarks.

Taking no action over driven grouse shooting is not an option and tighter conservation measures are imperative. Every action taken has consequences on others, and we have heard references to the importance of balance in today’s debate. Our fragile biodiversity and the wider ecosystem demand that we study the evidence.

We have heard again today that historic upland management has undoubtedly been damaging, whether it is about drainage and gripping, or about the industrialisation that we have seen on the moorlands over many centuries, which has been deeply damaging to our environment. However, there are also questions to be asked about land management today.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) about the degradation of her local environment and her local moorland, and about the real need to see conservation creating a more sustainable environment there, so as to protect its unique biodiversity. We talk about moorland as if all moors were the same but they are, of course, all different, with their own characteristics. Yes, we must be obsessed with the conservation of this land.

The big issues that need to be addressed are soil, drainage and hydrology; conservation and biodiversity; wildlife crime; and our wider concern about sustainability. On soil, drainage and hydration, the Boxing day floods brought into sharp focus for me, as for many MPs, the need to concentrate again on the causes of so much flooding. It is Labour Members who have consistently called for further action on catchment management. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for raising their concerns about the impact of land management on flooding.

[Mr Charles Walker]

As I said in my speech, we saw flooding in December 2015 because it had been the wettest two months for 105 years. In some parts of the country, 30 inches of rain fell in a single month. That is why we had flooding; there is no other reason.

[Rachael Maskell]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Yes, there were unprecedented levels of rainfall and, yes, we are seeing climate change that is bringing increased rainfall. The Environment Agency’s mapping shows that we should expect to see more heavy downpours. However, importantly, the causation of some of the flooding—not all of it—is how the uplands are managed. I took time over the summer to visit the sources of some of the rivers that feed into my city, which also flooded. I observed the deep peat bogs and both the post-industrial land and the driven grouse moorland, recognising the differences in the land use, and also pulled on the evidence that we have much debated today.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I also visited my hon. Friend’s constituency during the Boxing day floods. During that period we had, I think, two Opposition day debates, at least two statements and an urgent question, and all the Government Front Benchers acknowledged that upland management was an issue and that we had to look at the role played by tree planting and other forms of upland management when considering flood protection. I am surprised, therefore, that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) does not acknowledge that.

[Rachael Maskell]

That is very much what the former Minister said in every single contribution we heard about the need to use upland management to deal with flooding. We continue, therefore, to press the issue, and are very disappointed that in the national resilience plan, the decision about how to address the catchment areas was deferred.

A number of interventions are clearly needed. We have heard about “slow the flow” schemes and hydro-retention schemes, but we also need to consider upland management. We are not looking just at the flow of the water, but at the soil and vegetation, and at how we hold the water in the uplands. The research by the University of Leeds on the effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins—the EMBER research, as it has come to be known—is one of the most comprehensive studies out there. It shows that where there is heavy rainfall, there is more water flowing more rapidly downhill, contributing to flooding. The research also states that the burning of heather has an impact on hydrology, peat chemistry and physical properties, water chemistry and river ecology. As we know, the University of York is also carrying out a study, which is even more comprehensive and sustained, and we must see the completion of that evidence base as well.

[Simon Hart]

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report into flooding will be published the day after tomorrow. I obviously cannot comment on its conclusions because they are embargoed. Would the hon. Lady at least agree to read that cross-party report in full and consider any future comments on grouse shooting in the context of what she discovers in it?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will, of course, read the report as soon as it is published because, I, like so many MPs, have been waiting for a long time to see the outcome of that investigation. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the report.

We also know that because of heather burning, water is more acidic and contains a higher concentration of minerals such as manganese, silica, iron, aluminium and dissolved carbon, and that it is left to the water companies to purify it, at the cost, of course, of the consumer. The cost of flooding is huge to the public purse—we have heard about the £2.5 billion that the Government have paid out or will pay out over a 12-month period—and also to the insurance industry and individuals themselves. Driven grouse shooting cannot be held responsible for all of that, but it can be a contributory factor, which is why we say that more research is needed.

[Craig Whittaker]

I absolutely agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said about the need for a wider catchment plan. I am a bit surprised though to hear that she is disappointed with the Government’s response, when last Friday we saw a wider catchment plan for the Calder valley produced, delivered and on the table. That plan includes upland management, and the hon. Lady’s constituency, which also suffered from the floods in December, is covered by a wider catchment plan that is being put together as we speak.

[Rachael Maskell]

Indeed. I have been one of the proponents of the need to get on with the wider catchment management of water and flooding, but the national resilience plan talks about a delay beyond this Parliament, which is why it is really important that we press on with the necessary changes. Winter is encroaching upon us and our constituents are clearly concerned.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I want to move on to the next issue. I have limited time and I have generously allowed interventions so far.

The use of lead shot has been much debated in this place, including last December, in a debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). Lead remains a major pollutant, with 6,000 tonnes being discharged into the environment each year, 2,000 tonnes of which is from game shooting. Research is conclusive as to the environmental detriment caused by lead shot usage, and further concern has been expressed by the Food Standards Agency about the way in which the lead enters the food chain. Lead shot has been banned in Denmark for 20 years. We need to see progress on that.

I want to put it on the record that Labour recognises the conservation work that is being done on the upper moorland, and the professionalism of gamekeepers in executing that work. Conservation concerns have been expressed by Members from both sides of the House today.

We also need to look at cost. The cost is not just to the landowner, as many Members have indicated; there is a cost that is met from European Union funding, including money from the common agricultural policy, which, as the Secretary of State will want us to acknowledge, is public money in the first place, from people across our communities. The money also comes from non-departmental public bodies, such as Natural England and the national parks, and from the voluntary sector. Money from the public is, therefore, very much invested in the uplands. In other words, if the public are funding upper moors activities, they must have a say in how the money is spent. If the impact they see is detrimental, we can expect them to sign petitions calling for change. They have done that, and Parliament must listen.

Therefore, change we must, to ensure that soil, vegetation and hydrology are greatly improved. That must be a prime interest in land management, and if it means a move away from current business models, that is what must happen. I take issue with many of the contributions today about the all-or-nothing approach: either there is driven grouse moor shooting or we leave the land barren to develop itself. It does not have to be an either/or model. Thousands of volunteers work in conservation across the country, including in the upper moorland, and there are other opportunities for managing the land. We must recognise the volunteers who spend hours of their own time preserving our countryside. It cannot be an all-or-nothing approach, and the choice that has been put forward in the debate does not reflect the reality. I will give way on that point and will then conclude my remarks.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way right at the end. On the all-or-nothing point, does she accept that while there are problems—some more real than others—a ban on driven grouse shooting is not the way forwards in terms of biodiversity?

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman may have heard me calling for more research to take the whole debate forward. That is important.

Because of time, I will move on. We need to be cognisant of tomorrow’s debate on sustainability, and the points that Members have made on climate change are important. We have to understand the urgency of the issue. Conservation must be the prime driver and main consideration of our management of the uplands, as opposed to the pursuits carried out on the land. It is a matter of urgency, and we cannot just focus on the economic issues. The economic issues and the environmental issues are of equal importance. The crisis happening across the globe should focus everyone’s attention as a prime issue.

My question to the Minister is: how systemically is she prepared to look at the issues? Can we allow the burning of heather, which reduces the carbon storage properties of soil, impacts on hydrology, removes some mosses and leaves degraded soil and habitats behind? Is that acceptable? We would say no. Heather burning has also been cited by the Committee on Climate Change due to the depletion of carbon-rich peat soil, so how can we sustain that activity?

We know that some landowners will burn peat under agreement with Natural England—that is how the codes are managed—but we heard in the evidence session that some of those burnings go outside the allowed perimeters. We know that there are wider issues, too. We need to know how effective the codes are at managing the land. If there is further, conclusive evidence that peat burning causes environmental harm, will the Government call for a ban? In this post-referendum era, what further obligations will they place on upland managers to revegetate, to protect species and to hold more water in the uplands? This cannot just be a debate about choices and freedoms, as some Members have argued today. It must be seen as a matter of urgency to rescue our consumerist society from draining more natural resources.

Turning to raptors, it is of great concern that just three pairs of hen harriers were found on the moors in the past year. I am told that there should be 300 pairs —100 times the amount. Some 149 moors have no hen harriers at all. The numbers have fallen from last year, when there were 13 pairs. We are losing the species. It is a crisis. Numbers of peregrine falcons, white-tailed eagles and the awesome golden eagle—I once saw a pair soaring as I was hillwalking in Scotland—are declining, too. We need to ensure that we get on top of the issue of predation by humans.

I want to turn to the peer-reviewed research by Dr Ruth Tingay of the University of Nottingham. She has produced 30 peer-reviewed papers and 24 research papers. She highlighted how there have been 252 incidences of raptor persecution over the past 10 years. She highlights whether they were shot, disappeared, poisoned, caught by illegal pole traps and so on. The law is not effective, and we need to move it forward.

I am sure no one in the Chamber would condone wildlife crime, but positive action is needed for the hen harrier. The hen harrier action plan is not working in delivering an increased population, and that must be of great concern to everyone. What additional activity is the Minister prepared to undertake to ensure that we see the hen harrier population increase and tougher penalties on those who abuse the law? Financial penalties are clearly not enough. It is important to apply restrictive penalties, such as removing the right to manage a grouse moor. We also need to look closely at the Scottish licensing system and the shifting of responsibility around vicarious liability. We have seen two strong prosecutions in Scotland under the scheme. We need to look at whether that would lead to better managed moors as we move forward.

In the main Chamber, we have debated the use of snares and the impact that that has, but we need to look at the wider impact on wildlife. We have not heard about the mountain hare and the impact that culling is having on that species.

[Mr Charles Walker]

On a point of order, Mr Nuttall. The Labour Front-Bench spokesperson has been very generous in giving way, but she has now been speaking for 19 minutes, leaving less than 15 minutes for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I am sure that the shadow Minister is coming towards the very end of her remarks, because she has been posing a lot of questions and she will be keen to hear the answers.

[Rachael Maskell]

Thank you, Mr Nuttall. I am just coming to my concluding remarks. There are many issues that we would want to discuss if there were more time, but time is limited today. A responsible Government must recognise that land management cannot just be a balance of choices. We have to address the ecological crisis facing our nation. I will watch the Minister closely and listen to her response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

With the complexity of the new system, there are always issues relating to cross-border claims, where farms have some of their holding in one Administration and some in the other. It is important that we share information as quickly as possible. We had a particular problem on the Scottish borders because Scotland had far deeper problems with managing the scheme than we had in England, and getting the data to make those payments was particularly challenging. I am aware that there were issues in Wales as well, and we will do all that we can to ensure that we do not encounter such problems in future.

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

Thousands of farmers have been pushed into acute financial hardship, anxiety or stress owing to the failure of the Rural Payments Agency. In the past year, 62% of payments were very late and many have still not been paid. Now the Government are planning further delays of payment, which is unacceptable. Why will not the Minister recruit the staff needed to pay everyone all they are owed by this Christmas and, in the interim, institute bridging loans?

[George Eustice]

We are not planning to cause any further delays, as I made clear. Last year when we had a difficulty we recruited some 600 additional people to process the claims and pay them as soon as possible. As I have already said, this year we are in a better position. We have 80% of claimants applying online and we have committed to pay at least 90% of claims by the end of December. In any normal year there will always be some cases that are incredibly complex, such as those put forward by the National Trust, whose large, complex claims always take longer to process.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I welcome the Secretary of State to her place? I am sure she has had discussions with the Department for Exiting the European Union about the impact of the 16% fall in the value of the pound since the referendum outcome. In the light of that, what financial drivers to replace the common agricultural policy will she prioritise, with the mutual support of that Department, to enable farmers to plan now for the future and to remain productive while making the necessary progress on environmental measures?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks, and I also look forward to working with her. May I also welcome all her colleagues to their places? A number of them I have worked with over a period of time on energy matters, with great, fruitful results, so I look forward to a constructive relationship. In answer to her specific question, those are exactly the issues we are now looking at—the opportunities for revising the support we give our food and farm producers, to make sure we can grow more, sell more and export more great British food. It will take time to properly evaluate what that policy set should be, but I hope shortly to consult broadly. I have already had informal consultations, and I will be working closely with the industry.

Badger Culling/Bovine TB

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) for bringing forward today’s important debate.

Over the summer, I have been listening to the frustrations and concerns of those working with cattle about the ongoing risk that they continue to carry about the prevalence of bovine TB. They want solutions that work, which is why it is so important that we examine the evidence and look at the scientific research, which really does conclude that since 2011 when the strategy was put in place, research has moved on and we must move on with it.

The Republic of Ireland, after 32 years of culling, now recognises the flaw in it and has, therefore, switched to badger inoculation. In Wales, a fresh approach has been taken, which has seen 94.6% of herds TB-free and incidence continues to fall at a rapid rate—17% in the past year. I know that the Government want to be seen to be acting, but there are better ways of doing things. Therefore, they have a responsibility to farmers to ensure that they take an evidence-based approach.

There have been failings in the programme that has been put forward. Figures that have come from freedom of information requests show that the number of badgers culled has fallen far short of the Government’s criteria for an effective cull, so trapping has been used to support it. Therefore, when we trap a badger, why not inoculate it as opposed to exterminating it? The cull has failed on effectiveness and on humaneness. It simply has not delivered. Instead, we should take a different approach. This is about a public health issue and, therefore, we need a comprehensive health strategy and not just a simple sticking plaster to try to deal with part of the problem as opposed to the complete problem.

Bovine TB is a commutable disease. Understanding the pathogen transmission process is vital in understanding the associated disease management strategy. New research coupled with scientific analysis has unveiled more about the disease. Evidence-based policy making should engage with that. Ultimately, farmers are being let down if the Government do not act on the back of that. Research has shown that badger-to-cattle transmission is not through airborne routes and that it is likely to be through badger excrement, but more research is needed in that area.

[Lady Hermon]

May I add that recent research by the Department in Northern Ireland has shown that there is a potential that the spread of cattle slurry on pasture could be one of the contributing factors? That may be worth looking at.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that intervention about how we manage the environmental impact of bovine TB. Looking at slurry and manure spreading is one way of achieving that and it is an important point that I was going to come to later. However, cattle-to-cattle transmission is the key issue to address. Therefore, we need a comprehensive strategy that puts investment into more measures around biosecurity, which is really important to address the issue in a strategic way.

We also know that the culls that have taken place have not delivered the decrease in the badger population necessary to reduce the spread of TB, as identified by the independent expert group. As the years have progressed, scientists say that population estimates are becoming more inaccurate, so the effectiveness of culls is falling further year on year.

We also know that the new criteria, which seven out of 10 respondents rejected, will mean that the cull is less effective in years to come. We have therefore seen the prevalence of bovine TB increasing in the four culling areas, which clearly does not satisfy farmers. As the independent scientific review group has concluded,

“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain”.

We know that the cull has failed on effectiveness. The cull has failed on humaneness—between 7.4% and 22.8% of badgers are alive after five minutes. We know that badgers are not shot in the target area—only 45% are shot in the target area. We know that the cull has failed on cost, and we have heard today that the vaccine costs a tenth as much as killing a single badger. That money could be repurposed to support farmers.

[Dr Wollaston]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

New measures need to be introduced on biosecurity and testing, and we have heard about the gamma interferon test, which has a far higher level of accuracy but is not being widely used. The DIVA test is coming on board, and it will clearly differentiate between infected cattle and vaccinated cattle. We understand that that will be ready in about five years’ time. We need to look at the vaccination programme and build up vaccine stock.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I ask the hon. Lady to bring her remarks to a close.

[Rachael Maskell]

Of course. Farmers continue to pay the price for a lack of evidence-based policy making. The Government are using a one-pronged approach. We need to see scientific evidence and a proper biosecurity strategy at the heart of addressing bovine TB.