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.

Snares

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

It is good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Minister to her place. I look forward to debating important issues such as this with her. I trust we will see a new progressive approach, in particular on animal welfare and other issues within her brief. I hope that today she will be supporting the 77% of people who want us to take action on a ban of the manufacturing, sale, possession and use of snares.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) for bringing forward this motion and enabling the House to debate the indiscriminate and cruel nature of snares. He is not only an expert on animal welfare in this place but a real champion of it beyond here. He did not make the argument alone; it was echoed across these Benches.

Today, I will set out four key areas: the law, the issues, the research and the alternatives. I will start with the law. In 1981 the Wildlife and Countryside Act prohibited self-locking snares, specifying that snares must be free running. But there has been no definition in statute or in the courts of what self-locking actually means. We have heard today of the challenge caused by the fact that free-running snares turn into locking ones as a result of wires becoming twisted or rusted.

The Act also requires that snares should not be set to catch non-target animals, yet only 25% of animals caught in snares are target animals, meaning that 75% are not. Clearly, it is not possible to uphold legislation on that in practice. It also says that snares should be inspected daily, yet we know that only 77% are, meaning that 23% are not. There is clearly poor policing and poor practice on that. Basically, the law is not working.

Countries have recognised that. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) talked about the Welsh Government’s “Code of best practice on the use of snares in fox control”, published in 2015. The Northern Ireland Government brought forward the Snares Order (Northern Ireland) 2015, which requires snares to have stops and swivels and to be staked in the ground. We also heard from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) about the progress Scotland has made on the issue, by looking at training and registration, as well as the provision of personal ID numbers to ensure better regulation of snares. In 2005, Labour brought forward a code of practice to upgrade the 1981 Act, stating that snares should pose no risk to other animals. Labour then commissioned a research report, “Determining the extent of use and humaneness of snares in England and Wales”, which as we have heard came out in 2012.

There are five nations where snares remain legal: the UK, Ireland, Latvia, France and Belgium. Today we can take a step forward and join progressive nations in outlawing snares and recognising their real cruelty. We should also recognise the fragmentary nature of legislation on snares; the voluntary code is not working and the legislation is not being properly enforced.

Moving on to the issues, as we heard so clearly from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), snares are mainly used in relation to blood sports and the protection of game birds. We have heard that 95% of large landowners do not use snares. We have also heard that snares capture, maim and kill 1.7 million animals every year. During the course of this debate today, over 200 animals will have been snared.

We know that snares deteriorate over time—a point made powerfully today by hon. Members—with 30% becoming rusty or getting stuck. They are then no longer free-running, but dysfunctional and the cause of additional animal cruelty. We have also heard that catches are indiscriminate because snares do not identify the animal about to put its head, body or part of its body through the noose. Only 25% of snared animals are foxes; 33% are hares; 26% are badgers, and 14% are deer, otters and domestic animals such as cats and dogs. It is a criminal offence to harm domestic pets, but they also fall foul of snares. So do humans—fell runners and ramblers get caught up in and injured by snares. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about the lack of intent, but that is no defence. The evidence is before us today.

We have heard from so many hon. Members on these Benches about the extensive cruelty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said, it is barbaric how snares cause such harm and cruelty, with animals suffering for hours as they are trapped. If we claim to be a progressive country, we must have progressive legislation and bring in a ban. Today would not be soon enough. That view is supported by 87% of vets. As we have heard, 95% of landowners do not use snares and nor do 250 municipal authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East set out, the RSPB, Network Rail and many other authorities no longer use snares. The reason is that they are indiscriminate, inhumane and the law covering them is not applied properly. It does not work and it does not address the issue. That is borne out by the research, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) highlighted.

It is important to look at the behaviour of foxes. They are very competitive and territorial, so if space is vacated because a fox has been killed, other foxes will move into that area and breeding will increase to fill the space. That has been proven over 40 years, with our fox community remaining consistent at 250,000 adults. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) mentioned a response from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) about wildlife management. We recognise the importance of that issue, but that response was before the DEFRA report in 2012, which moved forward on the evidence. It is important that we look at the most up-to-date evidence, rather than looking back to parliamentary questions asked before that report.

The report talks about the need for increased powers in the code, because it is not working. We need to move the whole framework forward and to recognise that inspections are not working. The report goes on to say that inspections should happen not once, but twice a day. If that is part of the voluntary code, my question is how that would be implemented. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that once a day was enough, but it is not and we need to go further. We know that 36% of farmers are unaware of the contents of the code—or even of its existence—and only 3% have had any training on snares. Clearly the code is failing. It is failing animals and wildlife, and we need to get real about that. We also know that even stops on snares do not prevent animal cruelty, as so much evidence has now come forward on that point.

We need to move forward on the principles of how we uphold our wildlife, our animals and their welfare, to ensure that they have freedom from hunger, thirst, pain, injury and disease, freedom from discomfort and to express normal behaviours, and freedom from fear and distress. The psychological impact is also important.

What are the options for the future? More training and licences would follow the Scotland model, but we have heard that the take-up of training is low, so that in itself is not enough. Training manufacturers is also recommended, but the problem with that is as soon as snares leave the factory, they get old, rusty and out of date, and therefore do not work. Stops and swivels work to an extent, but injury is still caused to wild animals. The report recommends research on the design of snares. That is one option—research is always good and progressive and we always welcome it—but the reality is that snares are inhumane and cause harm to animals.

[Simon Hart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will press on because of the time.

We know that only 1% to 3% of pheasants are killed by foxes, so we are not looking at huge communities of animals that fall prey to foxes. There are alternatives that can be used. If we bring in a ban, we can make progress in the use of alternatives that the evidence suggests can be incredibly effective—

[Simon Hart]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am sorry, but I will move on. Other hon. Members have already spoken.

On alternatives for foxes, electronic fencing can be used, as can fencing set deep into the ground so that animals cannot burrow under it. Such methods are used by landowners who do not use snares to trap animals so cruelly. Scare devices can also be used, and if they are moved around it can stop habituation so animals continue to be scared off by them. Other alternatives include chemical repellents and cage trapping, which means that animals can be released unharmed instead of injured. Fencing is also recommended for protection from rabbits. So there are alternatives.

What I would say to the Minister this afternoon is that the work has been done, the research is complete and the evidence is weighty in favour of a complete ban, like most of our progressive friends across Europe. It is time that the Government brought forward legislation, no longer making excuses or delaying. We know that 68% of MPs would support it, as would 77% of our constituents, and it would be the right thing to do for animals as well as the wider nation. I say: do not delay. Labour would bring in a ban: will the Government ban the manufacturing, sale, possession and use of snares?

EU Referendum: Energy and Environment

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

We have had an important and revealing debate—revealing because it has confirmed our worst fears: that the Government called a referendum without first carrying out an analysis of what might happen should the electorate opt to leave the EU. It can be called nothing but reckless to enter upon a process without first carrying out a risk assessment. The analysis should have come first, as we have heard from many hon. Members in this debate.

This has been an excellent debate, however, with a deep understanding of all the impacts of leaving the EU. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), talked about the impact on climate change and the impact it is already having on some of the poorest people in our communities—2.83 million households are already in fuel poverty and, as we have heard, fuel bills are rising. We also heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the outstanding Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, highlighting many of the protections at risk if we leave the EU, along with the advances of the past 40 years—40 years of marriage summed up in two years of divorce. In particular, she highlighted the issues of air quality, water management, waste and, of course, biodiversity protection.

We were privileged to hear today the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). It was a tour de force. She brings to the House the energy with which she served her patients in accident and emergency and her community, and we are honoured to have her in the House. I know that she will be an excellent advocate for her constituents for many years to come. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has been a strong campaigner on air quality and emissions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who said many of the things I wanted to bring up. She brings great expertise to the House. We heard from other hon. Members across the House concerns about the impact of leaving the EU.

It was the Government’s determination that we should have a referendum, but first the impact of leaving should have been analysed—clearly, remaining would have resulted in normal policy processes. They could have then shared the outcomes with the electorate. We have heard today about the many risks. Not only should the impact assessment have taken place, but there should have been an understanding of the volume and depth of our regulatory ties with the EU and some scenario planning for what environmental protections the Government would prioritise should the pound plummet, as it is at the moment.

For instance, a member of the public asked me whether pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy would be implemented in full or whether the Government would scale back on the £563 million currently received back from the EU, and whether they would meet their match-funding obligations. We need to know the detail. How will farmers maintain a competitive edge while addressing conservation challenges and ensuring sustainable protections? We have not heard from the Government how much legislation is tied up with the EU. It is estimated that about 70% of our environmental protections originate from Brussels, but what is the real figure and how integrated are we? We have not heard from them how much resource is needed to carry out detailed analysis of the impact of leaving the EU in the context of the cut to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of 57% by 2020. Neither have we heard what amount of resources would be necessary to renegotiate each regulation, if that is the path we go down. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) suggested an alternative way forward.

How will we—or will we not—engage with the EU in the future on so many of these important environmental issues? How will we regulate, police and enforce the new UK-based law system as it affects the environment in respect of what currently occurs in the EU courts? What will be the mechanisms of the future? We still do not know. We have not heard about the costs of the necessary work and we have not heard even whether the people with the right skill sets are present in the Department at this time. We have not heard how the fall of the pound, wiping millions off the value of our economy, will impact on environmental projects and research. Neither have we seen any analysis of the global impacts. Perhaps the Government plan is simply to buy the whole package off Europe, but at what price? Will the cost be the same as for existing EU nations or will we pay more for those benefits? These are questions that must be answered.

Many Labour Members are concerned about the global impacts on the environment because we believe that protecting our climate and environment is one of the most important functions of Government. We are already witnessing a massive impact of decades of neglect. We see floods and famine, disease and drought, climate change and conflict, and we see population migration as a result, the impact of which can be felt across the globe, including on us here in the UK. The environment does not respect national borders. From the macro level to the micro level in respect of the loss of habitats and species, the Government have a weighty responsibility to drive forward a programme of responsible stewardship.

In 2010, the UK led the world on issues such as climate change and improving the environment. Opposition Members are proud of that, even while we acknowledge that there was so much more to do. As we have heard today, when it comes to dealing with climate change issues, we have slipped out of the top 10 nations and are now ranked 13th in the world—not the way in which we want to progress on these issues as we move forward. The UK led the EU as a major player on the global stage for environmental protections. We want to ensure that we maintain a strong voice as we move forward, rebalancing our natural environment. The strength of our influence, however, is now unclear. We will no longer be at the EU table, pressing the EU to go further.

Given that we have a falling and failing economy, I must press the Minister to commit to legislate to secure protection on all environmental measures that we are currently obliged to meet in the EU. How will he advance them, and how will he regulate to ensure enforcement of them? As we look back at our history, we do not want to become known as “the dirty man of Europe”; we want to make real advances on where we are today. Labour is clear: the Government must act urgently to replace these vital environmental protections in full.

On the most simple level, I want the Minister to clarify whether we will see—before the summer recess as the Government committed to provide—the two long-awaited 25-year plans for food and farming and the plans for the environment, or are these now placed in the box marked, “We did not have a leave plan, so we do not know what on earth we are going to do”? Will the Minister please provide some clarification today?

Labour wants to ensure that external pressures still lean on this Government. On air quality, we saw the World Health Organisation report released earlier today. Air quality is a public health issue; it impacts on people’s respiratory functions. As someone who worked in respiratory medicine for 20 years, I understand the impact that bad air can have. We have heard today how up to 50,000 people’s lives are ended prematurely as a result of the quality of air in our country. Yes, people are dying prematurely.

We need to know what the Government are going to do about the urgent question of air quality. It is already a serious issue in my own city of York, where people are dying prematurely, and I am aware of plans for developments that will worsen the air quality in our city. There are questions that we must address, from the question of how many trees we will plant to the question of how we will protect the provisions of important directives, to which so many of my colleagues have referred today. We want answers to those questions. The Government must set out their strategy for the future, which they failed to do before the EU referendum to take account of a possible leave vote.

Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us today. Will he commit himself to continuing to apply the precautionary principle when scientific data are not complete, or will he agree with the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and adopt the much weaker United States risk-based approach, which imposes limits on the way in which pesticides, genetically modified crops and food management are dealt with, so that profit is often placed ahead of environmental protections? We have a right to know the answer, as do the people of our country.

If there were time, I would raise many more of our concerns about the Government’s environmental protections. Ours is a fragile and complex environment. Over the last decades, we have worked diligently with our European friends and neighbours to rebalance our environment and climate, and today the Government should have made clear how they will advance the progress that has been made so far. We cannot afford further delay. We believe that the Government must, as a matter of urgency, replicate the multitude of EU directives in UK law. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will secure our environment for the years to come.

Draft Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from non-household Retail Market) Regulations 2016

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 General Committees

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I thank the Minister for his kind remarks.

I would like to speak on behalf of the Opposition today on these regulations. I first want to put on record my thanks for the enormity of work that has already been put in place in order to bring us to the point we are at today. Although I recognise that the 2014 Act has made it permissive to increase competition in the water and sewage industry for 1.2 million businesses, charities and public sector organisations, I want to ensure that we are thorough in our scrutiny of the regulations today. I therefore want to forward a number of questions to the Minister, to ensure that everything is watertight.

To start with, my questions are essentially on consumer protection. I want to know how long it is proposed that the exit process will take, bearing in mind that customers will need to be guaranteed the provision of the retailer before the exit is granted.

Secondly, I would like to ask how much notice a customer receives of their undertaker withdrawing from the market, since they may choose to continue a service with the retailer who has taken over the customers of the undertaker, or the customer may need time to choose an alternative retailer.

Thirdly, as the guidance notes say, there should be minimal disruption to the customer, but when it talks about minimum disruption, will there be any disruption and, if so, what disruption does the Minister envisage behind that?

Fourthly, I would like to ask about process, so that there is not confusion over billing, as has been seen elsewhere in the energy market when somebody exits the market and there is a change in licensee providing the service.

Finally on this point, I would like to know how customers will be communicated with about the changes of service provision, to enable them to maximise their choices.

[Rory Stewart]

I should be grateful if the shadow Secretary of State could clarify her fourth question on process, which I did not fully understand. There was a question on notice, a question on minimum disruption and then I missed the question on process.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am more than happy to clarify that point. The question is so there is not confusion around billing between the different organisations. When somebody exits the market, there will obviously be a new licensee who is providing that service, and, as has been seen elsewhere in the energy market, there has been confusion about the billing process. We need to make sure that customers are able to be communicated with by one organisation and be clear that they are not billed twice.

It is also essential that customers experience no detriment and, while I recognise the principle of equivalence, detriment could occur to non-household customers. I therefore seek further reassurance on behalf of customers. For example, while outstanding complaints will be passed to the new licensee, the guidance is silent as to how potential liabilities will be addressed. That could result in remedies being less favourable to the customer. Can the Minister bring clarity to that, since the guidance simply states that this is dependent on the commercial agreement drawn up? A current customer would want confidence that the terms on which they raised their complaint would result in no less favourable outcome.

For customers whose undertaker withdraws from the market, can the Minister confirm that, should they choose to deal with a different licensee from that which took over the customer base from the undertaker, they will have two years through which to switch from and back to them again, should they choose? Again, this is slightly ambiguous, but I know was raised in the debate on the regulations in the other place.

With regard to the risks identified, I note that there is expected to be an increased financial risk both to Ofwat and to DEFRA. What assessment has been made of the size of the risk in the light of the already severe cuts to the Department?

Finally, I would like the Minister to clarify a couple of questions on consequential issues appertaining to the measure. One of the most important areas of work in the industry looks at water-saving initiatives. Clearly these must be across the whole water and sewerage industry, and not just seen as a customer responsibility. How will the undertakers and the licensees work together to ensure that water conservation remains a priority in this new fragmented environment?

The second consequential issue appertains to householders. Although these regulations do not appertain to householders, householders and non-householders currently deal with the same water companies. After April next year, that may not be the case. I note that in the other place’s scrutiny of these regulations, the Minister said that they would be subject to the current cost basis for their water and sewerage in this five-year cycle. However, what risk assessment has been made on the impact on households? If none has been undertaken, will the Minister look into the matter?

Labour recognises that the Government’s ambition is to protect the consumer in the light of the permissible action available from the 2014 Act through these regulations. Although we have concerns about further marketisation and fragmentation of the water and sewerage industry, we believe that, subject to the Minister’s response today, we will not be calling for the Committee to divide.

[The Chair]

The Minister has plenty to get his teeth into there.

[Rory Stewart]

You can understand why I welcomed the shadow Secretary of State to her position, Mr Streeter. I think I have nine different questions here, which I will try to deal with one by one. If I miss anything, I am very happy to continue the debate through interventions.

I think the first question was around time and notice. The notice provisions are covered under regulation 12, as the shadow Secretary of State will be aware. Regulation 12(4) clarifies that,

“notice must be given…in the case of a person who is a customer immediately before the Secretary of State grants permission for the relevant undertaker to withdraw from the non-household retail market, at least 2 months before the exit date”.

On disruption, and the process we follow in terms of customer bills, the industry has set up a new company called Market Operator Services Ltd whose job is to build and manage a database of accurate information to enable switching and settlement.

There was a question on detriment and, in particular, complaints. This subject is dealt with in regulation 17, “Transfer of outstanding complaints”, at paragraph (3). As the shadow Secretary of State presumably knows, it went through a great deal of debate, both within the Department and with the parliamentary draftsman. Paragraphs (1) and (2) are largely laying out the terminology; the key to regulation 17 is paragraph (3), which states:

“Anything done by or in relation to the relevant undertaker in connection with the complaint is to be treated, on and after the exit date, as having been done by or in relation to the acquiring licensee.”

Clearly we all believe that excess words turn septic. The decision was that that was the clearest way of laying out the complaint. To return to my Penrith example, had I lodged a complaint as a non-household customer against the hypothetical Penrith Water Company that existed previously, at the date on which the exit takes place my complaint would become a complaint against the new company and would be treated as such.

[Rachael Maskell]

On that very point, although I understand that the complaint will be dealt with, as with the old undertaker, by the new licensee, can the Minister confirm that the remedy will be the same with the new licensee, as per the commercial agreement?

[Rory Stewart]

This is a very important technical question. The understanding of the Department and our legal experts is that this would be governed through normal legal contract arrangements. That is why it has been left as a very short sentence, as we believe that the existing procedures, regulated by Ofwat, will be sufficient to ensure that the complaint process is properly handled. We believe that putting in excess words and trying to micro-manage the detail of the process will not end up in as good and transparent a result for the customer as simply making it clear that normal complaint procedures are followed for the new company, regulated by Ofwat, as they would have been for the pre-existing Penrith company. I am confident that this is the best and most straightforward way of proceeding, but I understand the shadow Secretary of State’s anxiety.

On the question of switching, there are two key principles that underlie the regulations: completion and permanence. Although there were some suggestions during the debate in the other place, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, that it might be possible for a customer to leave and return—to leave my putative Penrith company and then hop back to them later—we decided, after a great deal of consultation, that that is not the correct way to proceed. The correct way to proceed is that it is complete and it is permanent. The Penrith company leaves, the new entrant enters and that is the end of it. There is no way for the Penrith company to then come back into that market or for an individual non-household customer to move back and forth between their previous provider and the new one. That is very important in order to have the market opportunity and flexibility for a new entrant. Let us imagine that a Scottish retailer wished to come into the retail market. It would need to be able to pick up a critical mass of customers and would not be able to do that unless there was a clear and completed exit procedure that meant the customer could not switch back.

The shadow Secretary of State made an additional point about the financial risks to DEFRA and Ofwat. We have looked at that in considerable detail. We do not believe that there are any financial risks to DEFRA. The costs, in so far as they fall, will fall on the industry. There is a very detailed cost-benefit analysis of what that will mean for the industry. Our assessment, based on our best evidence from a team of economists, and agreed by the industry, is that instead of being a net cost for the industry, the benefits over a 30-year period are in the order of £200 million.

[Rachael Maskell]

Could I just clarify the point about additional financial risks for DEFRA? My understanding is that the application to exit the market needs to be made to the Department. Therefore, surely that will mean that there are consequential risks as a result of administering the process.

[Rory Stewart]

The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right. The applications are made to the Department, will be cleared by departmental officials and signed off by the Secretary of State, but as she will be aware, the application for determination is a relatively straightforward process. The Secretary of State must grant permission, unless it is contrary to the interests of the public or the relevant undertaker has failed to comply with regulation 9. The bulk of the due diligence is done through Ofwat granting a licence to the individual, and Ofwat has a serious process in place to decide whether somebody is a competent operator. If that individual has received a licence from Ofwat—in other words, they are a competent operator approved by Ofwat—all our Department will be looking for in that process is that the proper notifications to the public have gone through, that the proper forms have been filled in, and that there is a clear agreement on who is exiting and who is taking over that market to provide the universal service to the customer.

The final issue raised was about the issue of water conservation and household customers. Household customers is a future piece of business. We are now talking about that issue, but it is not covered by these regulations. I am very happy to talk to members of the Committee and to the shadow Secretary of State about the detail of household customers in future, when that comes forward. These regulations cover non-household customers.

Water conservation is central to our strategic work and we have to consider it in every way, on both the supply side, such as leakage from pipes, and the demand side, such as how to reduce water use. One of the things that these measures should do, particularly for big water users—I give the example of utility companies, brewers or Tesco—is to provide really good incentives to reduce water use. There is more that we could do right across this issue. Water meters will be an important part of reducing demand. Finally, we have a huge process going forward, led by the water industry but with DEFRA closely involved, that is looking at long- term infrastructure investments—that could include interconnecting pipes and new reservoir systems—to provide for the possibility of drought and climate change in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and we have acted to deal with that problem. From April this year the Government extended tax averaging for farmers to five years, up from the previous two years, so that they can better offset good years against bad years. In addition, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a number of schemes, such as the time to pay scheme, which means that it shows forbearance to farmers who are suffering cash-flow difficulties.

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

Eleven years ago this morning, terrorist attacks were unleashed on our city. We pay our respects today.

As an environmentalist, someone who campaigned in the aftermath of the floods, and a lover of the great outdoors, I am proud to represent Labour as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Many farming businesses depend on trade with the EU. Following the outcome of the referendum, the resilience of farming will be keenly tested. What immediate steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that trade relations with EU partners will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future?

[George Eustice]

I welcome the hon. Lady and her colleagues to the Front Bench of this diverse Department, and I associate myself with her comments about the terrorist attacks.

Following the decision to leave the European Union, we are holding a number of meetings with officials to plan for our next steps on trade—indeed, we will have a meeting today to hold such discussions. It will be a matter for a new Prime Minister and the Cabinet that they put in place, but early thinking and planning work is going on across the Government.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am concerned that resilience was not planned for by the Minister in advance of the EU referendum. Trade and regulations for our food and farming industry are linked to the EU more than in any other sector, yet the Government’s cuts to DEFRA up to 2020 will total a 57%—yes, 57%—reduction in its budget. In the light of that, will the Minister explain how his Department will have capacity to analyse the impact of the EU referendum, build resilience, and negotiate the way forward?

[George Eustice]

For the time being we remain in the European Union, and all existing arrangements continue. Only once we have concluded negotiations and left the European Union will we put future measures in place. On capacity in the civil service, some areas and some EU dossiers have a long-term horizon with which we will perhaps be less engaged and involved, and that will free up capacity for some of the planning work that we need for our own domestic policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has been an assiduous advocate of his constituency, ensuring that towns and villages in his area are not adversely affected by flood defences upstream. We will be working on an overall plan for the River Aire catchment, through which we will manage the overall river flow instead of looking at individual places. That will form part of our national flood resilience review, which we will be announcing shortly.

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

The horticultural industry is particularly vulnerable following the leave vote due to the high proportion of EU seasonal workers in the sector. How will the Secretary of State ensure that our crops are harvested in this uncertain period by securing continued labour from the EU?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. She was a fantastic advocate for her constituents during the difficult flooding in York, and I look forward to working with her.

As for agricultural workers, my constituency is a great producer of salad vegetables and onions, and I fully understand the importance of EU workers to our agricultural industry. It will be one of the key things that DEFRA will work on, putting the case across Government to ensure that we continue to have that supply of workers.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is evident from the Secretary of State’s responses that her Department did not make contingency plans for a leave vote, failing in its duty to protect not only one of our major industries, but those who work in it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all EU citizens working in farming can remain in the UK, which the vote on yesterday’s Opposition day motion called for, and that she has already made representations to the Home Office?

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is absolutely clear that it is business as usual while we remain members of the EU and that those workers will continue to work in those areas. The reality is that I cannot make decisions for a future Prime Minister. That is the fundamental issue here and that is why my job over the coming months is to be a strong voice for farming and the environment in the overall negotiations.

Dog Fighting

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am also pleased to respond to today’s debate, which I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for bringing forward. This is my first debate as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The many excellent speeches and interventions we have heard today highlight the awful state we are in and the cruelty to animals experienced in our country. Today must move that debate forward.

Many of us are very proactive in campaigning for animal welfare. We all have a responsibility for good stewardship and wellbeing, but with our responsibilities, we in this place must also proactively address the real issues. For many years, I have represented RSPCA inspectors, so I know the real pressures they have come under. They have legal responsibilities, and in a time when resources are tight, they need our support to be able to fulfil their inspections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and others have said, those inspections identify not only issues related to animal welfare but wider domestic abuses and wider criminality.

While today’s debate will be responded to by the Minister, there are many pertinent issues for the Home Office and justice teams.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

No, I am rather tight on time, so I will continue for now. Following a surge in dog fighting, we have seen the legislation change. There was the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835, and Labour introduced the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which has been referenced today. The 2006 Act sought to bring harsher penalties on violators of the law and included the option for short custodial sentences. As we have heard, evidence shows that that option is insufficient to deter people from engaging in this illegal pursuit, whether for so-called entertainment or for gambling.

The League Against Cruel Sports, which I thank for its campaigning, has looked at the wide range of environments in which dog fighting occurs. There is street fighting, which relates to street culture. There are unplanned, impromptu fights that people sometimes gamble on, although not always, and are often associated with status. There is also more informal gambling around local circuits or highly organised fights where stakes of hundreds of thousands of pounds can change hands. There is still a real issue here and overseas with the dog-fighting culture. We have to get on top of that and address it with the application of tighter rules.

A number of questions arise from the number of prosecutions. The most stark is the difference between the number of complaints received by the authorities and the number of prosecutions incurred. Less than 5% of complaints translate into convictions. In 2014, 766 complaints were received, but only 31 convictions resulted, with just three people receiving a custodial sentence. In all, the rise in the number of complaints and the leniency of the criminal justice system demonstrates that needs are not being sufficiently addressed.

Campaign groups believe that tougher penalties, including longer custodial sentences—we have heard evidence about that today—would provide stronger deterrence. What are the Government doing to look into the effectiveness of longer sentencing, and not just here in Britain? We have heard from the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others about the experience in Northern Ireland of extending imprisonment. France applies a sentence of up to two years, and Germany and the Czech Republic apply a sentence of up to three years. We need to know the impact of that and whether the evidence is there that we should increase sentences, as so many Members have indicated.

We need to start looking at issues such as puppy farms, as the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said, and breeding programmes. Tighter regulations would protect the interests and welfare of dogs. That is an issue for the domestic market, but we also need to control what is happening with dog fighting. In particular, we need to look at the breeds outlawed under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that are still being bred, such as pit bull terriers. They are still in circulation and thousands of pounds is changing hands in breeding programmes. There are a number of things that we need to look at, and we have heard horrific stories of what happens in fights. We need to get on top of those abuses. We know that many of these things lead into wider issues.

My next question to the Government is on how they are supporting the inspectorate regime. From talking to RSPCA inspectors on the ground, I know that their ability is restricted by falling donations to their organisation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that RSPCA inspectors are resourced sufficiently to carry out their statutory inspections and, likewise, that the police are resourced sufficiently in supporting those operations?

Next, I want to ask about breaking the culture. We have heard evidence about that. What steps have the Government taken to deter illegal dog breeding and fighting and what is their analysis of the effectiveness of those steps? What have the Government done to raise awareness of the whole issue of dog fighting, particularly among those most likely to participate in the activity? There may be good learning to pool from Scotland and Northern Ireland. The League Against Cruel Sports is calling for a national dog fighting action plan. Labour would support that plan, which would evolve around prevention, understanding and prosecution. What are the Government doing to address that, and are they willing to set up a national taskforce to address dog fighting? Will they keep a national register of those who have been found to be involved in dog fighting?

One issue that has not been raised today is cybercrime associated with dog fighting, whether the selling of dogs, which has been mentioned, online participation in dog fighting or the videoing or recording of fights. What steps are the Government taking on cyber to track participants in this activity and to break into those heavily coded sites?

As I have said, dog fighting has far wider implications. It is a crime that is linked to other forms of criminality; many speakers have alluded to that. We particularly recognise the work in the US on that agenda. Dog fighting can be linked to domestic crime, drug dealing, firearms sales, physical and emotional harm, robbery and other illegal practices. How are the Government working across agencies, especially with the police, to ensure a co-ordinated strategy to address dog fighting and its links to wider criminality?

There is also an impact on public safety, as has been mentioned. Some dogs have gone on to bite people in their communities. How comprehensively have dog fights been followed up to assess the source of potentially dangerous animals? In the past 10 years, the number of dog bites has increased by 76%. The source of those surely needs closer analysis.

Finally, the Labour party condemns dog fighting, as do other parties. We are grateful for the ongoing work of organisations, particularly the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and many others, in their development of evidence against this. The House has a moral duty to ensure that it does all it can to uphold the welfare of animals. The onus now sits with the Minister to set out further steps that must be taken to ensure that this form of animal cruelty and criminality is more comprehensively addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

As my hon. Friend is aware, DEFRA committed £1.7 million to the Somerset rivers authority. That authority has now decided that its preferred solution is a precept, and a shadow precept will come into effect from April this year. We look forward to discussing the long-term financial arrangements directly with the authority.

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

York welcomes the investment in our flood defences, but the Foss barrier will be underfunded by this Government for the improvement that it needs, and the capacity of the pumps will be 40 tonnes per second, not the 50 tonnes per second that is needed. Will the Minister commit to considering that issue, to ensure that we have sufficient funds to improve the barrier?

[Rory Stewart]

We have significant funds for the barrier, and we are committed to considering that issue. I am happy to go and look at the Foss barrier with the hon. Lady. The calculation on the pumps is an engineering calculation, and we would be happy to look at the flood maps with the hon. Lady. We will provide the correct funds for the correct solution for the Foss barrier.