Oral Answers to Questions

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)]

Having been to Cornwall to meet my hon. Friend and see the StARR project for myself, I am more than happy to meet to discuss what more we can do, because I know that he and his colleagues on the local council are championing this scheme as much as they can, and I am more than happy to help.

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The sun may be shining today, but it has been a long, cold, wet spring for our farmers. Given the prediction that 17% of crops will be lost, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of farming businesses that will reluctantly stop producing food? How will he ensure that the farmers flood fund reaches all the farmers who desperately need it?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely valid point, and it is a shared concern across the House. Everyone can see the impact of the wet weather. That is why we are continually engaging with the sector. We had the farm to fork summit as part of that engagement, and we are looking at what easements can be granted in schemes such as the sustainable farming incentive, but also more widely. I will have more to say on that shortly.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate on the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill. Cestrians are certainly fond of animals and animal rights, and I have received hundreds of items of correspondence from constituents regarding the Bill and asking me to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on bringing forward the Bill.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and many of my constituents, I was disappointed by the scrapping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill last year—a manifesto pledge on which the Government stood—so I am pleased that some of the key issues from that Bill are addressed in this Bill. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

As important as this Bill is, does my hon. Friend agree that its provisions could have been on the statute book by now if the Government had not blocked Labour’s efforts to revive the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill last year?

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend.

The Bill is a declaration of our commitment to compassion and responsibility towards our furry companions. It seeks to address several pressing issues concerning the importation of these animals, ensuring their safety, health and wellbeing.

My constituency has always cared for animals and led the way on animal rights. Chester West and Chester Council was one of the first authorities to permanently ban the practice of trail hunting on council-owned land. The National Trust soon followed suit. The changes introduced by the last Labour Government have left an indelible mark on British history and have stood the test of time, from the bans on fox hunting and fur farming, to the action to stop experimentation on great apes and the testing of cosmetics on animals. We must ensure that we do not stop there. We should lead the way on animal welfare, and this Bill is another step forward and is long overdue.

Puppies, kittens and other animals continue to be illegally imported into the UK on an industrial scale, alongside increasing numbers of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and animals with mutilations, such as cropped ears. Every year, thousands of puppies are illegally imported into the UK to be sold to unsuspecting dog lovers, having been transported thousands of miles with little or no food, water or exercise. I am concerned that there is widespread abuse of the pet travel scheme to smuggle animals illegally, often under age, unvaccinated and in poor welfare conditions.

Dogs, cats and ferrets can enter the United Kingdom in one of two ways: as non-commercial pet travel movements or as commercial imports. More stringent requirements apply to commercial imports than to non-commercial movements. Evidence has shown that commercial movements are frequently being described as non-commercial movements to avoid the more stringent requirements.

In 2023, more than 500 landings of dogs and cats were intercepted at the port of Dover and found to be non- compliant with import requirements. Of these, 116 puppies and kittens were quarantined for being below the legally required minimum age for import. That data does not include animals detained at airports or found inland. We cannot know the true extent of puppy smuggling operations, so these figures likely capture only a small portion of the animals smuggled into the country.

According to Dogs Trust, since the relaxation of the pet travel scheme—PETS—in 2012, the number of dogs entering the country via PETS has increased exponentially. Dogs Trust has conducted five investigations, which have exposed smugglers using PETS as a cover to illegally import dogs into Great Britain for sale. In 2015, Dogs Trust set up the puppy pilot through which it funds the quarantine cost of illegally imported puppies seized at the border and then rehomes them responsibly through its network of rehoming centres. Since 2015, more than 2,256 illegally imported puppies have been cared for by Dogs Trust through the puppy pilot, which, if sold to unsuspecting members of the public, would have made more than £3 million for the illegal importers. As many as 75 dogs coming in through the Dogs Trust puppy pilot have had their ears cropped, despite this cruel mutilation being illegal in the UK and the EU.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting contribution. From her research, has she any idea to what extent the regulations are enforced to crack down on ear cropping, which is already illegal in Britain, but which we know still goes on? It is all very well not bringing in dogs that have had their ears cropped, but what does she think is happening to enforce the current law?

[Samantha Dixon]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said in his intervention, the Government need to commit to enforcement if they accept this important piece of legislation in order to tackle serious issues like ear cropping. I thank Dogs Trust and other animal welfare charities, such as Cats Protection and the RSPCA, for the important work they do to support the wellbeing of our beloved animals.

Talking of the RSPCA, I thought that I would take the opportunity to talk a little more about ferrets, which do not seem to have been mentioned much during this Session of Parliament. With the obvious exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), I do not think we have talked about ferrets in this place at all—we have been more likely to talk about reverse ferrets than actual ferrets.

I am grateful to the RSPCA for its fun factsheet on ferrets, to which I shall refer. I have learned a great deal about ferrets in doing research for this debate. Apparently, ferrets—or Mustela putorius furo, which translates as stinky, raging thief—are a close ancestor to the European polecat and, because of their charming and cheeky characters, have become popular pets.

Ferrets have a number of characteristics, which the RSPCA draws out. Ferrets enjoy exploring and are very curious. They are obviously predators, which is a characteristic for which they are more widely known, but they are also very sociable, which is probably why they have risen in popularity as a pet. They are playful and they also like sleeping. Apparently, they can sleep for between 18 and 20 hours a day, which is quite a feat.

Ferrets use a range of methods to communicate. They use a smell to hunt and they are also very vocal, which made me think—in a particularly vocal debate—about how they communicate. An excited ferret will make a “dooking” noise, which is also called chuckling. They can also produce a bark-like sound, and sometimes do that if they are afraid. Continuous screaming is an indication that they are highly alert in the presence of danger. Ferrets are flexible, colourful and can catch cold. They sound like a fascinating animal and I am so pleased that the debate of the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) covers ferrets as well.

Let me return to the Bill and welcome some aspects of it. I welcome the fact that it will ban the import of puppies and kittens under six months old, and dogs and cats that are heavily mutilated or heavily pregnant. It will also address the current abuse of non-commercial rules that compromises animal welfare and buyer security, by making it more difficult and less profitable for traders to import animals for sale fraudulently in the guise of owners travelling with their own pets.

At its core, the Bill seeks to establish comprehensive regulations and standards for the importation process for dogs, cats and ferrets. By implementing stringent health checks, vaccination requirements and documentation procedures, we can effectively safeguard against the spread of diseases and prevent the introduction of infectious agents into our communities. These measures are essential not only for the protection of the imported animals, but for the welfare of domestic animals and the public at large.

Furthermore, the Bill advocates the humane treatment of animals throughout their journey. From the moment they leave their country of origin to their arrival at their destination, animals deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We must ensure that they are transported in safe and comfortable conditions, free from stress, fear and unnecessary suffering. Additionally, the Bill seeks to combat the cruel practices associated with the illegal trade of dogs, cats and ferrets by cracking down on unscrupulous breeders and traders who exploit these animals for profit. In that way, we can protect vulnerable species from exploitation and abuse.

The Bill goes further on the importance of responsible pet ownership. Owning a dog, cat or ferret is not merely a privilege; it is a responsibility that requires commitment, care and compassion. On behalf of my constituents in Chester and the many animal lovers across the country, I once again congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on this important and long-overdue Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If someone is caught smuggling drugs or people, they face years in prison. From the information I have looked at, if the police do a sting—they do so sometimes, although not often, because they do not have the resources —and manage to catch someone who has been smuggling pets into the country illegally, that person will be looking at a couple of months’ imprisonment as a maximum, and probably not even that. For a criminal gang managing the risks, it is a worthwhile crime to introduce the puppies into this country, particularly given that their cost can run into several thousand pounds each. We need to do more to get rid of and stamp down on this practice. I welcome the Bill’s provisions, but, as other Members have said, I think we need to go further on enforcement and other measures.

I want to briefly touch on my journey trying to buy and getting a pet. During the covid pandemic, my children were pushing me to get a dog, while my husband was very against it, which I think is not uncommon in families. My children finally won the argument, and we decided to get a dog. I had not bought an animal before and I realised that the whole situation was a bit of a minefield. The first thing I did was to go online, where there are hundreds of websites selling pets, and I had no idea where they had come from or what their quality of life had been so far, nor whether they had been brought into this country legally or not. Pets4Homes is a big site; and Gumtree sells thousands of pets, as do puppies.co.uk and foreverpuppy.co.uk.

I looked on many different sites and did not know what I was looking for, nor how to avoid doing something I should not. I looked at some charities, which provide really useful information on what to do and what not to do; Dogs Trust has particularly good information about what to avoid. I found out that I needed to see good pictures of the animal with its mother, and to ring up the person who was selling it and have a conversation with them. I then needed to go and see the animal, make sure its mother and father were there, and look at the surroundings. On several occasions, that meant I was able to pick up on something slightly dodgy. I reported several cases because I could not see the animal’s mother or its background, and the owner was not asking me anything about my background; it did not feel right. I also reported a seller when I went to visit some puppies in a flat, because the flat was immaculate and there was no evidence that anyone was living there—there was just a crate of puppies and a man. I was just not comfortable that the situation was what it should have been, so I reported the situation.

[Samantha Dixon]

Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent “Coronation Street” storyline on precisely this issue? It involved the indomitable Evelyn, who is, of course, played by Maureen Lipman, and covered the issues around puppy farming. It was a strong, educational storyline in a well-watched and much-loved soap opera, and illustrates my hon. Friend’s point exactly.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. “Coronation Street”, like all the soaps, does quite a good job in helping to educate us about some of these issues.

I had to look online for information to ensure I was making the right choices. We ended up finding somebody who had brought a rescue dog over from Ukraine and had realised that the dog was pregnant, which they had not known at the time. The dog gave birth to only one puppy, which is quite rare and often means that the dog has had some maltreatment. We adopted that puppy, who was born in this country, with the mother having been brought over from Ukraine.

Lots of constituents have been in touch about this issue and lots of Members have given statistics showing why it is important that we take action. We are talking about a multimillion-pound industry across countries, with UK sales of up to 2 million puppies annually and a value of anything up to £2 billion. Some 50% of the industry is illegal or unlicensed. As the illegal trade has changed, so have its production systems. We were given many helpful briefings, from many organisations, for this debate. One from Battersea tells us that

“farms breeding puppies on an industrial scale are just as likely to be found in urban tower blocks, or warehouses in Eastern Europe, as they are in ramshackle, shiveringly cold, and filthy cages in sheds and shacks on repurposed smallholdings.”

A Four Paws report on the illegal puppy trade in the UK found that more than 30% of imported puppies were from Romania alone. According to respondents to Cats Protection’s “Cats and Their Stats” 2023 survey, 3% of the cats that were obtained in the 12 months preceding the survey were from abroad, which equates to 50,000 cats—there was no clarity as to the conditions.

As has been said, puppies and kittens that are imported too young face a much higher risk of developing illnesses or suffering an early death. I should have congratulated the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who made an excellent speech and knows much more about this and the impact that these things can have on our animals. I listened with great interest and learnt a lot during his speech. Raising the age minimum in this regard will allow animals to grow older and it will protect them a bit more from travelling long and stressful journeys. It would be welcome and would stop a lot of the sales of those very young pets; we do see that online and it is easy to find, with multiple adverts where young puppies or kittens are being advertised as four, five or six weeks old and ready for homing.

As I have said, puppy smuggling is an unchecked criminal activity, which causes suffering to animals and heartache and financial cost to their owners. It helps fund wider organised crime and presents an evidenced disease transmission threat. My constituents are very pleased with the hon. Member for North Devon for introducing this legislation. We have talked a lot about enforcement and the concerns that a piece of legislation is only as good as the enforcement that goes with it. The enforcement of existing laws and regulations is not adequate, so I have significant questions about enforcement. However, the Bill is a step on the journey in the right direction, and, on behalf of the dog, cat and ferret lovers in Croydon, I welcome it.

Neonicotinoids and other Pesticides

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the environmental impact of neonicotinoids and other pesticides.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank all Members who have joined this debate. I also thank everyone who has signed the many petitions linked to the debate, including a significant number of my constituents in Chester. It is clear that the concern about this issue is overwhelming. Before I start, I should say that I will do my best to refrain from any bee puns.

On 18 January this year, the Government approved emergency authorisation for use of the highly damaging neonicotinoid on sugar beet for the fourth year in a row, going against the advice of their own advisers and the concerns of campaigners and environmentalists across the country. That decision is yet again ill-judged and wrong. It directly contradicts our national and international obligations, such as the commitment to halt species loss by 2030 and the obligation under the global biodiversity framework to reduce the overall risk from pesticides by at least half.

Those decisions are being made against expert advice, waved through without a parliamentary vote and made on the basis that they are temporary and in the case of an emergency. Have we really had an emergency for four years in a row or is this just the Government’s way of nodding through harmful practice on a yearly basis?

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. I am sorry for intervening early, but I have to go to a meeting and wanted to make my point.

I am a beekeeper myself. I was recently speaking to the Somerset Beekeepers’ Association, which called the Government’s ongoing war on insects “unfathomable”. Does the hon. Member agree that we must have rigorous testing of chemicals before they are approved for agricultural use, and that the Government should introduce a clear qualitative target for significantly reducing the overall use of pesticides in agriculture?

[Samantha Dixon]

I agree with the hon. Lady and I thank her for the intervention.

Last night, I noted a BBC article entitled “Bee-harming neonicotinoid use ‘makes a mockery’ of ban”. There is no doubt that there is an issue with virus yellows, but we are facing a biodiversity emergency and lifting the ban is not the way forward. We have got to find another way. I support the calls made in the article by Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, for the Government to urgently deliver their long-awaited strategy on sustainable pesticide use.

Bees and other pollinators have for many years been facing an increasingly difficult task in the face of changing agricultural practice. That is a challenge in itself for our farming community, but it can also lead to a decrease in available forage and produce monoculture deserts for much of the year, making insect existence increasingly challenging. It is well known that neonicotinoid pesticides can be very harmful to a wide range of insects and invertebrates, including our beloved bees. They affect the nervous systems of bees and other insects, resulting in paralysis and eventually death. In fact, author and academic Professor Dave Goulson has warned that just one teaspoon of this type of chemical is enough to kill 1.25 billion honeybees. That is equivalent to four lorry loads.

Environmentalists, campaigners and local beekeepers have been in touch with me ahead of this debate to share their views and concerns on this topic, including the Wildlife Trust, our own Chester zoo, and Angharad, a local beekeeper who kindly alerted me to a report by the expert committee on pesticides that states:

“There is new evidence regarding the risk from neonicotinoids globally which adds to the weight of evidence of adverse impact on honeybee behaviour and demonstrated negative impacts on bee colonies”.

Bees play a crucial role in our food supply chain by pollinating crops, and their decline could have cascading effects on biodiversity and agricultural productivity. We should be protecting them, not putting them in harm’s way. Insect populations have suffered drastic declines in the UK. Recent evidence suggests that we have lost 50% or more of our insects since 1970 and that 41% of the Earth’s remaining five million insect species are threatened with extinction. Of course, other human factors and habitat loss are also to blame, but so is the widespread use of neonics. Given that a third of our food crops are pollinated by insects, we have a lot to lose.

The Government’s emergency authorisation allows the seed coating of sugar beet crops with neonics—a method of application that results in only 5% of the pesticide reaching the crop. The rest accumulates in the soil where it can be absorbed by the roots of wildflowers and hedgerow plants visited by bees, or it can leech into watercourses and affect the wildlife that lives there. If we thought sewage in our waterways was not enough, we are also adding harmful chemicals into the mix. Harmful neonics have been found in more than 10% of English rivers despite a widespread ban in 2018. In more than half the rivers where neonics were detected, they were at levels that pose a significant risk to wildlife. I back our farmers and am concerned that sugar beet farmers are experiencing a difficult time. However, lifting the ban is not the way forward. In fact, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ own economic analysis found that there was little impact of the beet yellows virus on sugar beet yield in untreated crops.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

Pollinators, which are obviously the subject of the debate, are particularly important, but what about human health? Norfolk County Council is the first council in the country to ban glyphosate. That is an important move forward, and perhaps the hon. Lady will give her thoughts on that. More importantly, should we not be trying to find naturally produced, sustainable products that are not harmful to pollinators or human health and to repeat what has happened with Norfolk County Council and glyphosate? We should be rolling that out and putting all our scientific efforts into trying to find those products for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, that underlines the importance of the strategy coming forward on the use of all pesticides. I thank him for his intervention.

We must find a science-led way forward that not only protects our bees and safeguards our future biodiversity and human health, but helps the farming sector by supporting initiatives that promote alternative, bee-friendly pesticides and sustainable farming methods. Despite the emergency authorisation being granted in 2022 and 2023, the proportion of farmers who decided against using neonics was 29% and 40% respectively. That shows that an increasing number of growers are trying to farm in a way that does not harm nature or rivers, yet there appears to be no support for those growers from the industry or Government.

The Government have instead focused on short-term solutions that will undermine the long-term sustainability of the farming sector and disadvantage those growers trying to do the best for nature. Emergency pesticide authorisation risks not only the floodgates opening for other harmful pesticide use, but slowing down crucial research on the alternatives. Without those alternatives, climate change will only lead to increased demand for neonics. The use of pesticides in the agricultural industry has become commonplace for many years, and there are good cases to support the use of targeted pesticides to help secure successful food production. However, some of those treatments are not being used in a targeted way and are affecting beneficial pollinators, as well as pest species.

[Sarah Dyke]

Scientists increasingly believe that there is no safe level of pesticides for humans to be exposed to. There is growing evidence that pesticides become more harmful when they are combined together—something known as the cocktail effect. I spoke to an arable farmer last summer, who told me he would never allow his children to eat bread made with his wheat. When I challenged him, he simply said, “Well, I know what’s gone into it, don’t I?” Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to regulate, incentivise and support farmers to lead the transition away from pesticide use?

[Samantha Dixon]

I agree. The hon. Lady makes a very compelling case, which I hope the Minister is listening to.

The widespread use of the pesticides is not seeking to target known pest species but, as the hon. Lady has mentioned, being used as a blanket catch-all that preloads the crops with deadly chemicals that can transfer into the pollen and nectar, and into the food chain. We must look for positive alternatives, and not settle for short-term harmful solutions.

Will the Minister comment on the assessment the Government have made on the impact of their emergency authorisation of neonics for the last four years? Will he explain why the Government have ignored expert advice, which puts our vital pollinators under threat? Will he commit to any future decisions on this issue being put to a parliamentary vote? Finally, will he tell us all when the long-awaited strategy will be published?

I thank all Members who have joined today’s debate. I know we are all busy bees with packed diaries, and I hope the rest of the debate will create a real buzz about this issue—sorry, I really couldn’t help myself. On a serious note, nature has a critical role to play in both integrated pest management solutions and tackling climate change. It cannot do that if it is under attack from harmful pesticides such as neonicotinoids.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)—and other hon. Members for joining the debate. I am not sure that I am particularly reassured. I have heard that, as of Friday, growers may be spraying this particular chemical on their crops.

[Mark Spencer]

On a point of clarification, the product is not sprayed. There is no aerial spraying of neonicotinoids at any point, and I would not want to inadvertently mislead the House.

[Samantha Dixon]

Crops are being treated with this particular chemical, which I find disconcerting. As I set out in my speech, concerns are shared by constituents up and down the country that instead of the chemical being used in an emergency situation, its use is becoming routine.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for broadening the debate into the use of the chemical in pet treatments, and I thank the Minister for his comments about how the Government are considering addressing the issue. An SI may not be the most appropriate way to do that, given the need for the wider concerns about neonicotinoids to be aired, as he said, as transparently as possible; an SI is not the route that most of my constituents would want to see followed. I go back to the point I made earlier about the use of parliamentary time to consider and debate these issues.

Hopefully, this time next year we will not be debating this issue. Hopefully, that will not be necessary, as alternative means of controlling the specific disease referenced today will have been found, but I hope that everyone here understands how worried people are about the future health of bee communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the environmental impact of neonicotinoids and other pesticides.

Oral Answers to Questions

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his local area. He is absolutely right; we are working with a range of local partners and people to put nature at the heart of what we do. I cannot commend Harrow council and the Hatch End Association enough for their work—they are putting in an apple orchard, wetlands and wildflower meadows, which are a superb addition to his already beautiful constituency.

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Environmentalists such as those at Chester zoo were shocked to see that the Government have ignored the advice of their own experts and authorised the use of neonicotinoid pesticides for the fourth year in a row. Will the Minister tell me how that is line with our national and international obligations to reduce the overall risk from pesticides, and how it reduces our biodiversity loss?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady will know from reading the details of the derogation that those pesticides will be used only if they hit the criterion; in many cases, they never do.

Storm Babet: Flooding

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I know that the Secretary of State visited my hon. Friend’s constituency today and will have seen for herself exactly what local people are facing. I know that my hon. Friend has rightly been a great champion for them, and he makes a good point about the role of local authorities in the local flood forums. It is important that everybody plays their part in this, not just the emergency services who come in if there is a problem. It is about the messaging early on, and that is why the Environment Agency has a comprehensive system of warnings that people can sign up to. Some 1.6 million people are signed up to its flood warning scheme and I would urge people to ensure that they know how to join it. I also urge local authorities to play the role that they really should be playing, and I will be talking to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to stress that further.

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Following the storm at the weekend, several areas in my constituency were affected. There are still active flood alerts across Cheshire, so many areas are not out of the woods yet. On Saturday morning, I visited a number of my constituents living in close proximity to Finchett’s Gutter who expressed serious concern over the timings of the flood alerts received over the weekend. Some of them were already standing knee-deep in water by the time the alerts came through. I join Members across the House in asking the Minister again what discussions have been had to ensure that as the rainfall continues, alerts are sent out in a timely fashion to give residents plenty of warning.

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course it is critical that warnings go out appropriately at the right time, and that was why this incident started to be flagged the previous weekend and why the national flood response centre was set up. There is a comprehensive Environment Agency flood warning service and I advise people to sign up to it, as well as checking whether they are in an area that might be at risk of flooding. One of the issues is awareness. The EA runs a lot of comms programmes on this, but if there is more that should be done, I will look at that in the review.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The last time I asked about the dumping of sewage in our rivers in this Chamber, the Prime Minister agreed with me that it is absolutely unacceptable. However, the OEP’s investigation is a scandalous revelation that shows the entire water and regulatory system is broken. What does the Secretary of State think should happen to companies, regulatory bodies and Government Departments that knowingly break the law?

[Dr Coffey]

We set up the OEP and it has the powers, thanks to this Conservative Government, to get on with the role as it sees fit. It is doing so—it has started the investigation and asked for more information, and we will comply with that. I say to the hon. Lady, as I said at the start of my response to the urgent question, that this is completely unacceptable by the water companies. That is why we are taking action and getting on with the job. We do not need lessons from Labour, who looked away and did nothing. They are the people who were taken to court by the European Commission for failure, failure, failure—thanks to Labour.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

If there is one thing I know, it is that my constituents care passionately about animal welfare. My inbox is full of emails about the importance of this topic to them. The scrapping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the prevarication on display today are, frankly, astonishing. I am baffled that Conservative Members cannot see how the withdrawal of the Bill makes constituents question whether this Government even care about delivering on their promises. As we have learned this week, trust matters to our constituents, and I know that my constituents care. They care about animal welfare and they care about the Government delivering on their pledges.

The dropping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill also creates huge worries for zoos across the country, including Chester zoo in my constituency, which runs world-leading conservation research and work on animal welfare issues. It is very worried that, without this Bill, the uncertainty surrounding the legislative framework within which zoos operate will be perpetuated. This is causing it real difficulties in allocating the charity’s spending. It is, in effect, in limbo. The Government need to engage with the zoo sector quickly to bring forward the central aims of this important Bill.

Chester zoo is not the only way my area is leading on animal welfare issues. Cheshire West and Chester Council was one of the first to ban permanently the practice of trail hunting on council-owned land, and the National Trust soon followed suit. The changes introduced by the previous Labour Government have stood the test of time, from the bans on foxhunting and fur farming to the action taken to stop experimentation on great apes and the testing of cosmetics on animals.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I hope that today we can have an element of consensus and that the Government will reconsider their position. It seems strange, when the official Opposition are backing a Government Bill, to not want to progress that Bill for the benefit of animals.

[Samantha Dixon]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that we do not stop here; we should lead the way on animal welfare. The belief in protecting animal welfare should not come and go depending on what is politically convenient or fashionable at the time—it should be a matter of principle and conviction. There is no need to go round the houses with this issue, introducing what appears to be a parliamentary pick-and-mix approach. We need urgently to go from A to B as simply and as quickly as possible. I will be voting to bring this Bill back, and I encourage Members across the House to do the same.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

We all dream of crystal-clear rivers winding their way through the beautiful British countryside, into our towns and cities, and out into a clean and glistening sea. Sadly, that is not the image that constituents up and down the country are familiar with. Instead, they are faced with the reality of endless hours of raw sewage being dumped into our rivers.

The Government have been weak on water companies and soft on sewage. As a result, our rivers and seas are plagued by sewage, agricultural run-off and diffuse pollution. Shockingly, analysis shows that sewage dumping is taking place every two and a half minutes. We all know that the environmental consequences are catastrophic, but it is not just the environment and the wildlife that are affected. The Tory sewage scandal has serious consequences for public health and for businesses that rely on the beauty and nature of Britain to attract visitors and thrive.

That is certainly the case in my constituency. The River Dee, which flows through it, is one of Chester’s greatest assets, playing a vital part in our history and day-to-day life. The Groves, on the riverbank, is home to numerous businesses, which rely on the beauty and of course the cleanliness of the river. It is a popular destination for Cestrians and visitors alike to enjoy leisure activities. That is why, when I was elected at the end of last year, one of my first acts was to bring together Welsh Water, local river groups, businesses and residents for a summit on the Dee to set out a vision for a clean river, free from the frequent sewage discharges that we see today.

Businesses and sports clubs that rely on the river have told me of the serious consequences that they are facing: people are less keen to take part in river-based activities, and customers are even turned away from hospitality businesses on days when the smell is too bad. Chester businesses are losing trade as a direct result of the Government’s sewage scandal. Indeed, on previous occasions, the world-famous Chester regatta—the oldest regatta in the world, which is celebrating its 290th anniversary this year—has had to be abandoned because of sewage discharges. I sincerely hope that, by the time of its 300th anniversary, sewage discharges will be a thing of the past.

According to data published by the Rivers Trust, a total of 919 hours’ worth of untreated sewage and storm water was discharged into the river in 2020. Despite nearly half a billion pounds being cut from the budget by central Government in the past 13 years, innovative projects such as Cheshire West and Chester Council’s new 1 km rainwater drainage tunnel are helping to alleviate the pressure on our sewage system and reduce the amount of foul waste that ends up in the Dee. Only half the funding towards the drain costs was provided by Government. That is just a drop in the ocean—or rather a drop in Dee—of what is actually needed to tackle the scale of the problem. The scale of change needed to eradicate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I thank the hon. Lady.

Bee-killing Pesticides

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this important debate—my first in Westminster Hall.

As Members on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned, it is well known that neonicotinoid pesticides can be very harmful to a wide range of insects and invertebrates, including, of course, our beloved bees. They are essential to the future of our planet, to the pollination of our crops and to our rich tapestry of biodiversity, yet in the UK, as we have heard, 13 bee species are extinct and one in 10 of Europe’s wild bee species are under threat.

The Government’s announcement of an exemption to the ban on neonicotinoids to treat sugar beet in England was ill-judged and wrong. I am concerned that the Government went against the advice of their own expert scientific advisers. Our understanding is that the use of neonicotinoids is mainly associated with sugar beet production in the east of England, but it is important to note that the chemicals can be washed into watercourses and can work their way into the food chain. As with most things in nature, there are always the ripple effects of consequences, chain reactions and things interlinked with one another. There is also a serious concern that the exemption for sugar beets will simply open the floodgate to the wider use of harmful pesticides.

Neonics can have consequences well beyond their site of application and, if used more widely, can put in danger vital efforts to recover threatened native species, including in my own constituency, where Chester Zoo is working hard with partners to create new habitats that encourage bees and other pollinators as part of its nature-recovery corridor in Cheshire. Similarly, the impact would be felt across the north-west region, where the zoo is assisting with the introduction of locally extinct species, such as the large heath butterfly.

I back our farmers, and I am concerned that sugar beet farmers are experiencing a difficult time. However, lifting the ban is not the answer. We must find a science-led way forward that protects our bees and safeguards our future biodiversity, but that also includes better support for the farming sector. In the middle of a climate and nature emergency, there should not be any ifs or buts when it comes to the health of bees. We must be prepared to make tough calls to address the ecological crisis and showcase environmental best practice, rather than allowing more bees and pollinators to be killed by neonics.

I lend my support to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for parliamentary approval for any future use of bee-killing pesticides. Will the Minister comment on the impact the exemptions to the ban have had since its introduction and on the expected impact in the next few years? More importantly, will he admit that any lifting of the ban is a huge mistake and that the use of such harmful pesticides should be banned for good, especially in the light of the environmental challenges we face?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this debate, and I welcome the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) to her first Westminster Hall debate. I also thank all Members who have made a contribution today.

The decision to grant the emergency authorisation has not been taken lightly and is based on robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits. Emerging sugar beet seedlings and young plants are vulnerable to feeding by aphids. Those transmit several viruses, known collectively as virus yellows, which lead to reduced beet size, lower sugar content and higher impurities. Overall sugar beet yield can be reduced by up to 50% by the viruses.

We withdrew authorisation for use of pesticide products containing the three neonicotinoids on outdoor crops in 2018, in line with the EU decision. Since then, sugar beet growers have been adjusting to new conditions. In 2019 and in 2021, the virus threat was low and the crop was not significantly impacted. However, 2020 saw severe damage, with up to 24% of the national crop being lost. Imports were needed to enable British Sugar to honour its contracts.

The emergency authorisation has been issued with a strict threshold for use, so that Cruiser SB will be used only if there is a likely danger to the sugar beet crop. This year, the threshold has been set at a predicted virus incidence of 63% or above, as forecast by an independent model developed by Rothamsted Research. That increase reflects our improving understanding of the fit between the model used to predict virus incidence and real-world outcomes, and it means that the product is less likely to be used. The aim of the threshold is to ensure that Cruiser SB is used only if there is a likely danger to the sugar beet crop.

The forecast will be made on 1 March this year. It is only then that we will know for certain whether the seed treatment will be used this year. In 2021, the model predicted that the virus level would not meet the threshold, so the seed treatment was not used.

[Samantha Dixon]

On 1 March, will the decision be the Minister’s or will it rest with others, and if so, who?

[Mark Spencer]

The decision will not be made by Ministers; the decision will be set by a threshold. Rothamsted Research has set that threshold and that model, and it will take into account weather patterns and levels of aphids and virus within the environment. The decision will be made based on that model, so I will not be involved in that decision, nor will any other Minister.

Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use that have been set as requirements for emergency authorisation. If that threshold is met and if neonicotinoid- treated seeds are planted, conditions will be put in place to mitigate risk to the environment, including to pollinators. The conditions include the prohibition of any crop that flowers before harvest being planted in the same field within 32 months of a treated sugar beet crop and compliance with a stewardship scheme, which requires monitoring to be performed to determine the levels of neonicotinoids in the environment. Full details of the key conditions of use have been published on gov.uk.