Forestry Commission

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing new arrangements for the governance and management of the Forestry Commission. The Scottish Government are legislating to complete the devolution of forestry, with the effect that from 2019—the centenary year of the Forestry Commission—the Commissioners’ statutory remit will be only in England. The Commission, its dedicated staff and above all our 250,000 hectares of English public forests are a great national asset. I am confirming today that the Forestry Commission will be retained in England, and will continue to manage our public forests for public benefit—including supply of timber, public access, and the environment.

We will establish a new Board of Commissioners of the Public Forest Estate. Commissioners will continue to be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of her Ministers, who will retain a power of direction.

The Government will not allow any net reduction in the size of the Public Forest Estate, and will support the Commissioners in taking opportunities through active management of the estate to plant more woodland and increase natural capital.

We will continue our work to protect, improve and expand forests and woodlands in England beyond the PFE, as part of the Government’s commitment for this to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than it found it.

We will work together with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to promote strong forest science, to sustain high standards for forestry in the UK, and to protect our trees against pests and diseases. Our world-renowned research agency Forest Research will continue as an agency of the Forestry Commission, with new governance, commissioning and funding arrangements agreed with the devolved administrations.

These arrangements provide certainty for the future of the Forestry Commission, and a strong, sustainable platform for our precious forest and woodland environments to thrive for the long term.

[HCWS229]

Environment Council (October)

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Written Statements

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

I attended the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 13 October. Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, also attended.

I wish to update the House on the matters discussed.

The effort sharing regulation (ESR) and land use, land use change and forestry regulation (LULUCF)

The effort sharing regulation (ESR) and land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) regulation, alongside the EU emissions trading system, will implement the EU’s 2030 emissions reduction target under the Paris agreement.

The Estonian presidency and the Commission called for a swift and ambitious deal so that the EU could demonstrate progress in implementing the Paris agreement ahead of the 23rd Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP23) in November. On the ESR, member states remained split on the proposed size of the safety reserve of 100 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent put forward by the presidency to address concerns from some member states on the starting point for the 2021-2030 emissions trajectory. The UK and other like-minded member states expressed their desire to keep the size of the reserve as small as possible. After a full table round, the presidency concluded that there was support for the text. However, it put forward a new proposal including an increase to the safety reserve to 115 Mt and a small targeted adjustment to the 2021 emission allocation for two member states (Latvia and Malta).

On the LULUCF regulation the majority of delegations were in a position to support the text as drafted, with a number of delegations sympathetic to the presidency and Commission’s desire to find a solution that would take into account the special circumstances of forest-rich member states. The high ambition group of member states including the UK reinforced the need for caution and reiterated the need to protect the overarching environmental integrity of the regulation. This included pushing to limit the size of managed forest land flexibility. The group also opposed a request for deforestation emissions to be compensated. The presidency proposed a compromise text removing any suggestion that there should be compensation for deforestation. There was a limited increase of 10 Mt in the compensation available to Finland under certain conditions, to recognise the challenges facing the most heavily forested member state.

A general agreement was reached on both pieces of legislation with most member states voting in favour. The presidency announced that the first trilogue with the European Parliament would take place on 19 October.

Adoption of Council conclusions on the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-3)

The Council adopted conclusions on the European Union priorities for the third meeting of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-3) in Nairobi on 4 to 6 December 2017, on the theme of pollution. The conclusions emphasise the links between pollution and health; underline the need for changes in the way our societies produce and consume goods and services; call for integrated action and co-operation between nations, the business sector and civil society; and look forward to the adoption of an “ambitious, concise and action-oriented ministerial declaration”.

Adoption of Council conclusions on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP23)

The Council adopted conclusions on the Paris agreement and preparations for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings in Bonn on 6 to 17 November 2017 (COP23). The conclusions set out the continued momentum of climate action; a clear desire to make progress on technical negotiations on the Paris agreement rulebook; an expectation for an inclusive facilitative dialogue that will lead to a raising of ambition in 2019-20, and the need for progress on climate action in other international fora.

AOB items

The following items were discussed under Any Other Business.

Reports on recent international meetings

The presidency and Commission updated Council on several recent international meetings:

Sixth session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP 6) to the convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention), (Budva, Montenegro, 11-13 September 2017);

Joint high-level segment under the Meetings of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention and its protocol on PRTRs, (Budva, Montenegro, 14 September 2017);

Third session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOPP 3) to the protocol on pollutant release and transfer registers, (Budva, Montenegro, 15 September 2017);

First meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Minamata convention on Mercury (COP 1), (Geneva, 24-29 September 2017); and the

13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP 13), (Ordos, China, 6-16 September 2017).

A more transparent, more effective and safer assessment of chemical substances

The French, Italian and Luxembourg delegations presented information to Council on a more transparent, more effective and safer assessment of chemical substances. They also called for a strategy for a general reduction of exposure to chemicals to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection.

China Europe Water Platform (CEWP) High Level Conference

The Commission updated Council on the China-Europe Water Platform High-Level Conference (Turku, Finland, 21-22 September 2017).

The importance of good co-ordination and coherence of integrated national energy and climate plans for the implementation of the Paris agreement

The Luxembourg delegation presented information to Council on the importance, for the implementation of the Paris agreement, of good co-ordination and coherence between the integrated national energy and climate plans for 2030 and the long-term emission reduction strategies, as well as of minimum quality, comparability and transparency standards.

Fiftieth session of the international seminar “Science for Peace the World Over”

The Polish delegation updated Council on the 50th session of the international seminar “Science for Peace the World Over” (Erice, Italy, 18-24 August 2017).

Ratification of the Kigali amendment to the Montreal protocol

The United Kingdom delegation, supported by the Luxembourg delegation, encouraged member states who are in a position to do so to ratify the Kigali amendment to the Montreal protocol by the 30th anniversary Meeting of the Parties to the protocol in Montreal this November, in order to demonstrate leadership on this issue. This was supported by another member state and the Commission. The amendment will come into force in 2019 as long as at least 20 countries have ratified by then.

On 23 June 2016, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future once the UK has left the EU.

[HCWS224]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

1. What steps the Environment Agency is taking to prevent illegal fly-tipping on farms.

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

Fly-tipping on farmland is a serious antisocial crime that damages the environment, human health and farm businesses, so tackling it is a priority for this Government. So far, we have strengthened the ability of the Environment Agency and local authorities to seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers. We have also given local authorities the power to issue fixed penalty notices. We are working with the National Farmers Union to increase reporting and to better target enforcement. I also recognise that this is a devolved issue, so my hon. Friend will be working with Natural Resources Wales.

[David T. C. Davies]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent campaign by Farmers Weekly to bring in much tougher penalties across the UK for the criminal gangs responsible for fly-tipping on farms in Britain?

[Dr Coffey]

Minister Coffey is a bit coughy this morning, Mr Speaker.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of tackling such criminality, so we are working closely with the Environment Agency to investigate further ways of doing that. We will continue not only to work with the police, but to create new powers so that we can get rid of criminals from the waste industry entirely.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Fly-tipping is a curse not only on farmland in Huddersfield, but up and down this country. It is usually associated with people who operate just above the law. They hire out skips, and then take the money, evade landfill duty, and tip the waste everywhere. We must have an Environment Agency with the powers and resources to do something about that.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We do work closely with the police in making fly-tipping a focus for the Environment Agency. I also draw to the attention of the House the fact that we are continuing to do more to help councils to tackle litter more widely. As we announced yesterday, we have plans not only to double fines, but to make it easier to tackle motorists who throw litter out of cars. The Government are very focused on this, and we are working with councils to make progress.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). The trouble is that the fines are not heavy enough, which makes it easier to tip on farmland than to go to a waste disposal site. Unless we get some teeth and impose really heavy fines, we will not stop these people, who leave farmers with the huge problem of getting rid of the waste.

[Dr Coffey]

I recognise what my hon. Friend says. It is key that we continue to do more to work with farmers at a local level to ensure that their farms have better barriers against such access. Nevertheless, this is about targeting, getting intelligence, ensuring that we follow up people who are dumping, and using the full force of the law to deter such behaviour.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister has outlined the importance of the issue and the role of the local councils. Will she indicate what incentives local councils can make available to homeowners to encourage them to use waste recycling centres, rather than harming agricultural land and farmers?

[Dr Coffey]

This matter is devolved in Northern Ireland. We are issuing new guidance with the Department for Communities and Local Government to try to clarify what councils should and should not be charging when people want to use the recycling centre. I know that councils want to do the right thing. Some £800 million is spent every year on tackling litter and fly-tipping, which is why we want to work with councils and the Environment Agency to make improvements.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

The Warwickshire NFU convened a roundtable on this matter last month after a terrible spate of fly-tipping. It has two asks of the Minister: can we provide more briefing for magistrates so that fines are proportionate to the crime; and can we extend fixed penalty notices to the statutory duty of care for the disposal of waste on households?

[Dr Coffey]

We are looking carefully at the issues that my right hon. Friend raises, particularly the second one. I will take them away and speak to one of the Justice Ministers about potential sentencing guidance.

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

Zero Waste Scotland estimates that Scotland’s deposit return scheme will save Scottish councils around £13 million a year in fly-tipping, litter-picking and kerbside recycling costs. Has there been any attempt to conduct a similar analysis in England?

[Dr Coffey]

We have issued a call for evidence on reward and return schemes for things such as plastic bottles. An independent committee will be looking at that. I know that the Scottish Government have asked our Department to work with them on their proposals. We are looking carefully at the report that came out a couple of weeks ago, but trying to extrapolate economic benefits on the basis of a handful of councils is not necessarily a straightforward exercise.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to end the ivory trade; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

T2. The £100 million Boston flood barrier is probably the biggest public investment in the town’s entire history —promised and delivered under a Conservative Government. I know that the Minister has had the public inquiry’s report; can she update the House on when we are likely to start actually building the thing?

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

As my hon. Friend points out, this significant barrier will substantially reduce the risk of flooding for almost 15,000 homes and nearly 1,000 businesses. He is right that I have received the report; the findings are now being considered by lawyers. This legal due diligence must be completed before I can make any final decision on granting the order. In the meantime, I can assure him that the Environment Agency is making all necessary preparations to start construction as soon as possible, subject to securing funding from the Treasury, which I am confident of.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

In the referendum last year, people did not vote for dangerous levels of pollution and the weakening of environmental protections. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to make worthy speeches about a green Brexit, but as it stands, the Government’s repeal Bill makes this an impossibility. Will he now admit that the omission of the “polluter pays” principle and other environmental protections are a fundamental flaw, and will he work with me and other colleagues to guarantee the strongest possible protections for our environment as we leave the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T4. The Government are committed to planting 11 million trees. May I encourage the Secretary of State to ensure that many of them are planted in Chipping Barnet? He would be very welcome to visit to see those trees planted in our wonderful green spaces.

[Dr Coffey]

We do want to plant more trees. We are trying different ways to accelerate the planting of trees. My right hon. Friend will also be aware of our manifesto commitment to plant 1 million urban trees. I am very hopeful that many of them will be in her delightful constituency. I am sure either I or the Secretary of State will visit in due course.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

T3. Like many other MPs across the House, the Secretary of State and I supported CAMRA’s general election pledges for beer and pubs, because we recognise the role of pubs in our communities. Is he putting pressure on the Chancellor to freeze beer duty in the Budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government’s recently published clean growth strategy outlined our ambition for zero affordable waste by 2050. Policies and regulations, such as the packaging and waste regulations, are designed to increase recycling and reduce the amount of packaging that ends up in the natural environment. Almost all packaging is technically recyclable, although some local authorities and waste management companies choose not to collect it for various reasons. Next year, we will be publishing a new resources and waste strategy, in which I hope to set out more.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

T5. How much of the waste produced by the Secretary of State’s Department is recycled?

[Dr Coffey]

I may need to refer the hon. Lady to Hansard and I will write to her. I am aware that we generate food waste, but that all of it goes to anaerobic digestion.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

T8. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as powers are repatriated from the EU, everywhere in the UK should feel the benefit? Would he be willing to visit my constituency to meet colleagues and representatives of Scottish agriculture to understand local concerns, and to discuss the potential placement of further UK Government Departments in Scotland?

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T6. Do we expect progress in sorting out abandoned waste sites owned by the Crown Estate, such as the one at Sandy Lane in my constituency?

[Dr Coffey]

I met the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter. We have been engaging with the Treasury about the site, because I know there is a particular issue he wishes to be progressed. The Treasury has oversight of the Crown Estate and the tax system and will consider the business case in due course, but I can assure him that the Environment Agency will continue to work closely with the local councils. They have removed the dangerous waste that was there.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

How many slaughterhouses do not currently have CCTV installed?

Animals in Peril

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my first time in doing so. I have to say that you look very good in that Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. He has a strong track record in supporting animals and their welfare, and he is absolutely right to raise this important issue. The protection of endangered species around the world is a key priority for this Government, as we reaffirmed in our manifesto earlier this year. Both domestically and internationally, a strong economy needs a healthy environment. That requires healthy ecosystems, global biodiversity and the conservation of species. An estimated 40% of world trade is based on natural resources, but pressures on the global environment are increasing. Major ecosystems, and the species to which they are home, support the livelihoods of billions of people, but they are under threat. In short, protecting animals is as vital for us as it is for them.

We are taking action, bilaterally and through international agreements, to protect wildlife populations, whether they are threatened by poaching, habit loss or human-animal conflict. The United Kingdom is recognised as a global leader on environmental issues, whether by raising the illegal wildlife trade up the international agenda or through our commitment to tackling climate change, deforestation and ocean acidification.

We recognise the ongoing threat to elephants throughout much of Africa, so this month we announced our plans to ban the trade in ivory in the UK. We had already effectively limited trade in modern worked ivory and in all raw ivory. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford says it is “too little, too late”. I am concerned that he is not being generous enough, given that we already had the toughest laws and licensing regime in the European Union. I assure him that, if they go ahead as planned, the proposals will be the toughest in the world, except for those in India. I assure him that we are taking forward this important agenda.

The ban will build on the range of activities that we already undertake throughout Africa, to demonstrate further our global leadership in efforts to protect elephants and consign the ivory trade to history. We welcome the steps taken by other countries, particularly the USA and China, which has the largest market demand for ivory, to restrict their ivory markets. It is only through such international commitment and global co-operation that we will end this pernicious, blood-thirsty trade.

Nevertheless, I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that the greater threat to animals in peril is habitat decline, whether because of direct human intervention or climate change. Deforestation not only destroys critical habitats for biodiversity but causes 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As Members will see later this month in “Blue Planet II”, significant impacts on the polar ice caps are threatening wildlife directly, while ocean acidification threatens the food web itself.

Forests support 90% of the world's biodiversity, regulate water quality and mitigate climate change by absorbing and storing carbon. More than 1.6 billion people depend on forests for food, medicine and livelihoods. The UK is determined to eliminate deforestation in developing countries and is investing £5.8 billion through our international climate fund between 2016 and 2021, with additional focus on mitigation and adaptation. My Department is investing around £210 million to protect and restore more than 500,000 hectares of the world’s most biodiverse forests and create sustainable livelihoods for the 500,000 people who rely on their local ecosystems. These forests, from the mighty Amazon to mangroves in Madagascar, are also home to thousands of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, many of which are critically endangered.

We are aware that illegal logging can cause environmental and biodiversity damage, as well as having a disastrous effect on the people who live in and rely on forests. The UK has long been at the forefront of global action against illegal logging. As a result of the EU forest law enforcement, governance and trade plan, which the UK was instrumental in establishing, all timber exports from Indonesia are now certified as legal, compared with only 20% meeting that standard in 2005.

This year, we are marking the 25-year anniversary of the world-renowned Darwin initiative, which provides grants to projects in developing countries for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. Since 1992, we have invested £140 million in 1,055 Darwin projects in 159 countries. The projects tackle issues that put animals in peril, from the loss of and damage to habitats caused by human activity, to the reduction of the use of poisonous pesticides. Recent projects have helped to conserve iconic species such as gorillas—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who is right to praise the work of the Aspinall Foundation—as well as snow leopards and elephants.

The Darwin initiative is also critical to the protection of some lesser known animals, including the Madagascan pochard, possibly the rarest bird in the world, which was saved from extinction, and the St Helena wirebird, whose conservation status has been downgraded from critically endangered to vulnerable. Darwin projects have also discovered new species—for example, a new amphibian in Colombia and Madagascar and a new land-snail in Thailand—and led to the re-discovery of a rare crane fly on St Helena that was thought to be extinct for decades. That shows that we must continue to help conserve and protect habitats, creating places where animal populations not only survive, but thrive.

The Darwin Plus fund bolsters our commitments by protecting the unique diversity of our overseas territories, which are home to 85% of the UK’s critically endangered species. Invasive non-native species are a significant problem on many of the overseas territories as they can attack native species. That is why we are contributing nearly £2 million to eradicate mice from Gough Island, where they decimate local populations of seabird chicks.

We also aim to protect more than 4 million sq km of ocean around the overseas territories, making them safe havens for marine creatures. We will create a marine protected area around Tristan da Cunha and Gough Island in the South Atlantic, a UNESCO world heritage site that is home to northern rockhopper penguins and the Tristan albatross. Pitcairn’s new marine protected area permanently closes around 840,000 sq km to commercial fishing, thereby protecting species of fish found nowhere else on earth.

We also play a leading role in promoting the protection of whales and dolphins. We work tirelessly within the International Whaling Commission to improve the conservation and welfare of these animals. Earlier this year, the UK made a voluntary donation of £200,000 to tackle critical threats to welfare such as bycatch in fisheries. We are also a very strong voice against the commercial and scientific whaling undertaken by Norway, Iceland, and Japan. We regularly apply diplomatic pressure to those countries to cease their activities, as I did just this week when I was at the G7.

The illegal wildlife trade is a serious criminal global industry. My hon. Friend will be aware that a lot of focus is on majestic species such as elephants, rhinos and lions, but the scale of illegal trade across all species is increasing. Indeed, pangolins are the most trafficked mammal. Unfortunately, their defence mechanism is to roll into a ball, which makes them even easier to poach and traffic. He should also be aware that flora is even more trafficked than fauna, including many plants, and rosewood has the greatest value of all. Early this year, a focused operation by Interpol across 43 countries seized birds, reptiles, seahorses and many other endangered species. I can assure him that the criminal enterprise of this scale is, unfortunately, only possible due to shocking levels of corruption. Therefore, in addition to legislative action, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is investing £26 million—that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when she was Environment Secretary—which is double our previous investment. We are doing that to try to reduce demand, to strengthen law enforcement and to develop sustainable livelihoods for communities that live alongside such animals in peril.

There is also considerable work being done to develop sustainable wildlife tourism economies. Next October, the UK will host the fourth international conference on tackling illegal wildlife trade. We are committed to working with our international partners around the world to tackle the growing problem of illegal wildlife trade. Indeed, it is working with other nations to reduce demand and disrupt this crime that will truly make the difference. For this reason, the UK and China are jointly developing a law enforcement training project in southern Africa, fulfilling the commitment that we made at the 2017 illegal wildlife trade conference in Hanoi.

The UK is an active participant in the Convention on International Trade in International Species. At the last conference in which I participated, the UK was involved with up-listing a number of species from appendix II to appendix I under the convention, which means that they are now afforded enhanced protection from such trade. These species include one of the species to which my hon. Friend referred—the African grey parrot—as well as the Barbary macaque, the turquoise dwarf gecko and the Chinese crocodile lizard. The 12th conference of the Convention on Migratory Species is meeting later in October and we will continue to work to ensure that more species are afforded greater protection.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to refer to the domestic species, but he will recognise that our focus is on pressures on habitat, which will continue to pose challenges, whether that be domestically or abroad. Our work to date shows that it is possible, with effort and commitment, to improve the chances of some of our most endangered species. It is not something that the UK can do alone. Global action is needed and global responsibility is required, but I can assure him and the House that the UK will play its part.

Question put and agreed to.

Lowland Curlew

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on securing this debate. He has set out a compelling and passionate case for saving, preserving and enhancing the life of the curlew in this country. As we know, he was one of my most successful predecessors. I appreciate his years of valued service and experience, and indeed the advice he has given me from his time when he was the Minister responsible for the natural environment.

As my right hon. Friend highlights, the curlew is among the UK’s most widespread wading birds, but its breeding range has contracted substantially in the past 50 years. As a result, and as he set out, 10 years ago the species was moved to the globally near-threatened category of the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list of threatened species. As was noted earlier in the debate, in the past 20 years the curlew population has decreased by about a half.

Supporting a quarter of the summer breeding population and a fifth of the overwintering population in global terms, the UK has an important role to play in protecting curlew. This is reflected in the fact that declines in the UK have a greater impact on the global population than in any other country. As my right hon. Friend knows from experience, the Government are absolutely committed to reversing the declines in bird populations, including curlew and other wading birds.

Declines in the curlew have been caused by a reduction in breeding. Although adult curlew are long-lived birds, very few breed successfully, and the few remaining lowland populations that have been studied show that very few, if any, chicks are produced each year. There are two principal causes of the decline in production in lowland areas. My right hon. Friend set out very clearly the predation of nests and chicks, but there is also the intensification of grassland management, especially earlier rolling and cutting of grasslands, which crushes nests and can kill chicks.

On protection, the curlew is a migratory species and there is an obligation to classify special protection areas under article 4 of the birds directive, which requires the provision of SPAs. The UK network of more than 270 SPAs covers about 2.8 million hectares of key habitats. There are currently 87 SPAs in England, of which 13 have been classified for non-breeding curlew. There are currently no SPAs classified for breeding curlew in England or elsewhere in the UK, but reviews of the network show that the north Pennine moors—admittedly not lowlands—are the single most important site in England for breeding curlew.

A third of curlew overwintering in Britain use habitat provided as part of those SPAs. I recognise that that is only part of protecting the species, but increasing that suitable habitat and then focusing on breeding success in upland and lowland grasslands is vital. We have to have an international action plan for curlew. We are contributing internationally to actions to address that in our role as a signatory to the African-Eurasian migratory waterbird agreement, notably through the national implementation of our international action plan for the species, which was adopted two years ago. The long-term goal of that plan is to restore the favourable conservation status of the Eurasian curlew throughout its AEWA range, and for it to be assessed by 2025 as “least concern” against the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list criteria. The short-term aims are to stabilise breeding population declines, to improve knowledge relating to the population and conservation status, and for any hunting activity to be sustainable.

In spring last year, an Ireland and UK curlew action group was formed by a range of organisations, including our country’s conservation agencies, the RSPB and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust to co-ordinate conservation measures. The group is meeting for the third time, but as my right hon. Friend points out, talking is challenging when it is time for action.

Activities already under way include Natural England working with the RSPB on a recovery programme aimed at providing a co-ordinated approach to the management of curlew habitats, including predator control, to increase breeding numbers. That forms part of the international action plan to address the “near threatened” status of the curlew.

My right hon. Friend argued passionately for the increased use of predator control in the protection of curlew, and was reinforced in that by my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). I absolutely agree that control of predators such as foxes and stoats has a role to play in the recovery of rare or declining species, particularly ground-nesting birds.

As my right hon. Friend knows, predator control already takes place throughout the countryside as part of normal farming and game-keeping practice. It is true that predation at the egg stage is common in some areas and control of those predators has a role to play in their recovery. However, that control should be effective and not lead to making the predators themselves extinct.

A number of species predate curlew nests and chicks in the lowlands, including red fox, carrion crows and badgers. The relative importance of different predators differs locally. Land-use changes can have an impact on curlew populations through support of predators, so there is sometimes the interesting challenge of fragmented landscapes—where we may introduce patches of woodland —that have often been shown to support greater numbers of predators, but can be beneficial in other aspects of biodiversity.

Areas where predators are managed, such as areas managed for grouse shooting, have higher rates of breeding success, as my right hon. Friend illustrated, and we have seen a threefold increase in curlew abundance. The question of predator-prey interactions, however, is not straightforward. A variety of research shows that predators are part of a complex mix of factors that can influence prey populations. I am assured by my scientific advisers that the research shows that, although predation is the main reason for egg and chick losses in many bird species, most can withstand high levels of predation. There may be local short-lived benefits and we need to consider long-lasting measures.

[Richard Benyon]

Will the Minister go back to her officials? I entirely accept that populations of certain species can withstand levels of predation as long as there are plenty of them, but when there is a very small number of a declining species, there is no margin for error. We can do as much habitat preservation as possible, but if we do not include this part of the piece—predator control—then that margin for error means that we will continue to see a decline.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend, dare I say it, needs to wait for the conclusion of my speech, which I have rewritten during the debate.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to empower farmers. He will know that our agri-environment schemes have been designed with the aim of encouraging habitat management to promote conservation in targeted areas, whether that is about suitable nesting or foraging conditions. We are delivering significant areas of habitat for wading birds, including the curlew. About 600,000 hectares from the predecessor schemes are managed for wading birds, and since 2016 Countryside Stewardship has provided 10,000 hectares under the new schemes.

A payment-by-results approach currently being piloted in the Yorkshire dales includes looking at habitat, but I want to stress to my right hon. Friend that farmers are able to manage the land as they wish. They are paid on the suitability of the habitat that they provide, but they can undertake predator control. That is farmers’ choice. It is important to stress that they have absolute clearance from the Minister responsible. It is about managing habitat, but they are also free to use techniques to ensure that predator control does not undermine the intended outcome of the project.

In highlighting projects to help curlew decline, my right hon. Friend rightly praises the work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, including their action for curlew project launched earlier this year. However, GWCT states that it is not just about predator control. We have to make sure that we get a balance of dry nesting areas, wet foraging areas and insect-rich grassland for chicks in spring and summer. Through that combination of proactive habitat management and predator control where required, we can bring about positive change for curlew.

I am also conscious of the RSPB’s upper Thames wader project, which is working with more than 200 farmers to create, restore and manage wetland grasslands to support species including curlew. That area now supports the largest population of curlew on lowland farmland and again demonstrates the importance of providing habitat and feeding resources for birds and chicks.

My right hon. Friend may well be aware of the curlew country project in Shropshire, which brings together local communities to raise awareness and monitor local curlew populations. I understand that, although they may not be having quite the impact that he rightly demands, in raising awareness and bringing communities together to work to preserve the curlew, they do valuable work that we should not underestimate.

I am genuinely grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. He will be aware, from his time as a Minister, that in a portfolio as wide as the natural environment, it often does take debates to get some focus on a particular topic. He has passionately set out why we need effective action, and I agree. That is why I will be asking Natural England and policy officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to include the use of predator control in all current and future projects that we fund. It is important to me that it is at least considered, and that reasons are given for why it is or—equally importantly—why it is not included in a particular scheme.

My right hon. Friend will understand that we need to undertake an appropriate mix of actions, including protecting important sites, working with farmers and other land managers to manage these habitats carefully, and targeting legal predator control to halt, and then reverse, the decline of this iconic species. The curlew is too important to be lost from our world’s biodiversity. As I set out earlier, our actions matter because a substantial proportion of these birds winter or breed in the United Kingdom. We need to make this a success, so that England and lowland curlew can continue to have the bright future for which my right hon. Friend hopes.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to support the rural economy.

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

The Government are absolutely committed to supporting and strengthening the rural economy to allow good businesses to grow and thrive. We have invested nearly £2 billion of public funding in delivering superfast broadband. We have the universal service obligation, and we will be securing improvements to mobile connectivity in rural areas.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The best way to help the rural economy is to keep farmers in business. Will my hon. Friend will give me a modest little birthday present today, and undertake to be positive about reintroducing a deficiency payments scheme? That scheme was very popular with farmers before 1972, and the United States introduced such a scheme after 2002 that was not contrary to World Trade Organisation rules. The scheme would actually help the rural economy greatly.

[Dr Coffey]

We will study my hon. Friend’s comments carefully. I must admit that I was born in 1971, so I do not have any direct knowledge, but he will know of the ongoing support that the Conservative Government will continue to give farmers, and we have made a commitment to continue that stable support as we transition out of the EU.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

One of the best things the Government could do to support farmers in my constituency, particularly sheep farmers, is just give them simple clarity about whether they will be paying tariffs on their exports to Europe of sheep products. That will be key to their ability to plan their investment with certainty during the next 18 months.

[Dr Coffey]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have set out the approach we intend to seek for a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union once we depart from it. We want to provide such clarity as soon as possible, and he will be aware that the negotiations are ongoing.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

17. I note that the Minister is aware that the cost of the bureaucracy related to applying for common agricultural policy subsidies has been considerable for farmers over recent years. Will she reassure me that this cost under the new British agricultural policy, or whatever it ends up being called, will be considerably lower and that it will be easier to apply for?

[Dr Coffey]

I am very happy to assure my hon. Friend that our future agricultural policy will be designed in a way that reduces needless and energy-sapping bureaucracy. We expect it to be simpler than the CAP, but she will recognise that we have a duty to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent carefully and transparently. We will continue to reward farmers and landowners, who manage our precious countryside, in a way that supports the best environmental outcomes.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

In the Minister’s answer to the original question, she mentioned the roll-out of rural broadband. May I appeal to the Minister by saying that the roll-out is taking far too long in many communities, including my own constituency? What more will she do to speed up the installation of superfast broadband in rural areas?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Welsh Assembly Government are working closely with local communities and BT Openreach to reach such places. I am sure he will be able to follow up on that directly, but I will pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with food exporters in the west country on safeguarding tariff-free access to EU markets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

T3. Many of my constituents in Blaydon have suffered badly from landfill sites on their doorstep. What plans does the Secretary of State have, first to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, and secondly to ensure that environmental protections are not only preserved but strengthened in the Brexit process?

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

I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. I am sure that she will be a worthy successor to David Anderson, the gentleman with whom I worked previously. I assure her that we are working with councils to identify the barriers to increasing recycling in their areas. One London borough recycles less than 15% of its waste whereas other areas recycle more than 60%. There are lessons that we can share, and I am actively engaged in that, including in working with the Environment Agency on the proper regulation of landfill sites.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

T7. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) has drawn the House’s attention to the fantastic show in his constituency. I wish to draw hon. Members’ attention to the most spectacular summer’s day out in Worcestershire, the Hanbury show, which is held in my constituency. However, the farming communities in Inkberrow, Hanbury and the Lenches, who take part in the show with their fantastic produce, are concerned that, post-Brexit, there will be standards that affect the import and export of their products and have a negative impact on their trade. Will the Minister give us specific reassurances on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Last summer, I was pleased to meet key representatives from the charity Surfers Against Sewage. I congratulate them on their battle against plastics in our seas and marine environment, including the Solent and the River Itchen in my constituency. The summer holidays are due to begin. Will Ministers outline the work that we are doing around our coastlines, particularly the Solent and the Itchen, to ensure that they are safe for water sports and our local wildlife?

[Dr Coffey]

I, too, congratulate Surfers Against Sewage on not only its direct activity, but its ongoing campaigns. I was therefore pleased to meet Hugo Tagholm in the past year. Our beaches are of better quality than at any time since the industrial revolution. Last year, we introduced tougher bathing water standards, and even under those tough standards, 93.2% of England’s beaches were rated excellent or good. I visited the Itchen last month. I am aware of some of the challenges, including the pressures of abstraction, but we will do what we can to improve the ecological as well as the leisure quality of rivers and beaches.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), will the Secretary of State say exactly how he will ensure that products such as traditional Grimsby smoked fish, produced by the excellent Alfred Enderby’s traditional smokehouse in my constituency, retain their protected geographical indications?

United Nations Ocean Conference

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on the recent United Nations ocean conference, held in New York from 5 - 9 June. Although I was unable to attend due to the pre-election period Defra’s deputy director for marine policy led the United Kingdom delegation. I wish to convey to the House the global importance of the conference and summarise its key outcomes.

The UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development, commonly referred to as SDGs or the UN 2030 agenda, are a collection of 17 goals that set the global environment and development agenda from 2016 to 2030. They cut across all areas of Government, from ending poverty and achieving gender equality through to tackling climate change and using resources sustainably.

The conference was an attempt to galvanise international action on the implementation of SDG 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. This SDG tackles a range of marine issues such as marine pollution and ocean acidification.

It produced two major outcomes: a call for action and a registry of over 1300 voluntary commitments made by the global community to support the implementation of SDG14.

I am pleased to report that, through our statement to the conference, the UK Government were able to demonstrate our continued support for the SDG process. We recognise the delivery of SDG 14 has a particular significance for small island developing states and least developed countries and that we would continue to support the Commonwealth marine economies programme, in developing sustainable ocean economies, alleviating poverty, and mitigating the effects of climate change and environmental threats.

The UK Government statement noted that climate change and ocean acidification continue to be significant threats to the long term health of our oceans. We highlighted the major role the UK played in securing the Paris Agreement and reiterated our commitment to its implementation.

I am also pleased to report that, recognising the need to take action on pollution from land-based sources, including the increasing amount of plastics and micro-plastics, the UK was able to sign up to the UN environment clean seas campaign.

The expertise of our marine science industry was demonstrated through the successful ocean acidification event led by the UK.

The UK also made four voluntary commitments to support the implementation of SDG14, highlighting our work on marine protected areas, including in the overseas territories; marine science; marine litter and the Commonwealth marine economies programme. These can be viewed on the conference website at:

https://oceanconference.un.org/commitments/

The call for action was agreed by consensus at the conference although the United States dissociated itself from the language on the WTO and recalled the US administration position on the Paris Agreement. The call highlights particular action to be taken on a number of issues including: the need to increase scientific knowledge, prevention of pollution, in particular from plastics; delivering sustainable fisheries and improving access to market for small scale artisanal fisheries in developing countries; concluding negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on fishery subsidies; and encouraging active engagement in the discussions on the development of an international legally binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The call for action is available at:

https://oceanconference.un.org/callforaction

[HCWS44]

Diesel Fumes: Islwyn

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

I was trying to be kind and charitable to the hon. Gentleman, as he has always been to me. He raises a pertinent point. The Government need to show political will, but the motor industry, including HGV and freight, also needs to make an effort.

As I have said, there is an average of five deaths a day in Wales due to air pollution. That means that between now and the general election on 8 June, 215 people in Wales will lose their lives due to this Government’s inaction. Those most at risk of contracting lung diseases from exposure to air pollution are the two most vulnerable groups in society: young children and the elderly.

On the Hafodyrynys Road in my constituency, one of the residents—a pensioner—suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He says that the fumes on the road make it even harder for him to breathe. Another resident, who moved to the road in 2014, has visited the hospital four times since moving there and has been diagnosed with a leaky heart valve. That is further aggravated by the exposure to nitrogen dioxide. Furthermore, a mother of two young children says that the fumes affect her son so badly that he has been prescribed an inhaler to help him breathe. That is just not right. People should be able to leave their homes without having to worry about their health, and to enjoy the outdoors. Instead, my constituents on that road are being made to feel like prisoners in their own homes.

The situation has become so desperate for my constituents on Hafodyrynys Road that half of the residents have called on the local council to purchase compulsorily and demolish their homes so that they can relocate. How can it be acceptable that people have got to the point that they feel that they have no other option than to see their homes demolished? Residents cannot afford to live elsewhere, as they know that their current properties will not sell due to the adverse publicity about pollution in the area.

This is a public health crisis and the Government are choosing to ignore it. In Wales, pollution is the second biggest killer after smoking. When it comes to breathing in toxic diesel fumes, many people do not have a choice. DEFRA has had plenty of chances to tackle the issue, but it has chosen to let my constituents down every time. Illegal levels of air pollution have become the norm in Britain, and residents in areas such as Hafodyrynys are helpless to do anything about it. It further worries me that there is a primary school just a mile from the road, putting young children at risk of the health complications caused by exposure to nitrogen dioxide.

I am not the only one incensed by the issue of air pollution. I pay tribute to local councillor Andrew Lewis, who has been at the forefront of the campaign for better air quality in Hafodyrynys. The Mayor of London and public health bodies have all called on the Government to do more. Just this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) asked the Environment Secretary an urgent question. The Secretary of State said that her Government are committed to leaving the environment in a better state than they found it. Those are empty words, because at every opportunity they have been given to take action they have proposed inadequate plans. The Government have had long enough. It is clear where their priorities lie and, based on the evidence, it is not with the environment or the health of the British public.

My constituents want illegal and toxic pollution levels to be vanquished, as I am sure do the other 40 million people living in areas of the UK with illegal levels of air pollution. That is entirely achievable, if the Government show political will.

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

Labour didn’t manage it.

[Chris Evans]

That is just typical. I am talking about public health and the Minister is more interested in scoring political points.

Upper Catchment Management

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[Dr Coffey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Hollinrake]

When the Minister visits Yorkshire, will she also take the opportunity to come to the jewel in the crown of North Yorkshire—the North York Moors and Pickering—to look at the scheme there and what further measures we might put in place to finish the job?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend tempts me. I know that his part of Yorkshire is one of the most beautiful parts of our wonderful British Isles. However, I am sure he recognises that I will have to prioritise my time in the next few weeks. If I am lucky enough to be re-elected to this House and reappointed to this role, I am sure that at some point I will be able to do that. I thought he had already grabbed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit at some point; he cannot be too greedy.

This has been a very useful opportunity to discuss the benefits of upper catchment management. I am confident that the House agrees that by working closely together across catchments we can make significant improvements. The Government have said that we want to be the first to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. Strong local integrated catchment management can be a way to help to achieve that ambition.

[Rachael Maskell]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Coffey]

We have invested.

[Rachael Maskell]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered upper catchment management.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

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

The great repeal Bill will ensure that the whole body of existing EU environmental law will continue to have effect in UK law. Over time, we will have the opportunity to ensure that our legislative framework is outcome-driven and delivers on our overall commitment to improve the environment within a generation. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to uphold our obligations under international environmental treaties, champion high standards in environmental protection and continue to seek to influence other countries to do so.

[Jeff Smith]

Ensuring that environmental regulations are introduced in the great repeal Bill is fine: that is very important. At least as important, however, is ensuring that those regulations are permanent. Will the Government commit themselves to placing no limit on the timeframe within which regulations will remain in place to protect our health?

[Dr Coffey]

The country decided to leave the European Union last year. We are trying to provide as much certainty as possible to ensure that regulations continue to exist as part of UK law, and, as a consequence, that will be the case. It concerns me that the hon. Gentleman thinks we are somehow going to rip up the rule book, because that is far from being the outcome. We want a better environment for our future generations, and that is what the Government will deliver.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

The Minister knows very well that the EU environmental regulations have been very helpful to people like me—and you, Mr Speaker—in holding the feet of HS2 to the fire when it comes to protecting our environment. Will she undertake not to allow any diminution in the protections that are afforded to areas of outstanding natural beauty, and to ensure that our exiting of the European Union does not hand HS2 a blank cheque enabling it to ride roughshod through our countryside?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have already committed themselves to upholding the highest environmental standards—standards that we cherish—in developing HS2, and, indeed, other infrastructure.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

May I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for a national framework rather than ad hoc local decision making, especially given that emissions are currently declining? Will the Minister bear that in mind while she is working on the EU air quality regulations? In drawing up the framework, will she take account of all causes of air pollution, properly cost the alternatives—I am thinking particularly of the costs to drivers and the taxpayer—and urge the Government to stop demonising diesel drivers?

[Dr Coffey]

I think it fair to say—and we have said it at this Dispatch Box before—that when we are tackling air quality issues we must work with local communities, because the solutions will vary and there must be targeted interventions. I am afraid—well, I am not afraid—that our Government are not demonising diesel drivers at all. It was the Labour Government who introduced incentives for people to start using diesel. It happens to have been the current Mayor of London who stood at the Dispatch Box in his last year in the Brown Government and said that Euro V emission standards would solve the problem. We know that that is not the case, but we are clearing up the mess. Together, we can work across party lines to ensure that we have cleaner air for the people whom we all represent.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

One of the environmental standards that we can improve outside the European Union as much as inside relates to the state of the oceans. As the Minister knows, a massive amount of dumping of plastics is damaging sea life and coral wellbeing. A huge United Nations conference will take place between 5 and 9 June. Ministers will be busy doing other things, but what will this Minister do to ensure that the British voice is properly heard to ensure that something is done to clean up our oceans?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we launched our litter strategy recently. We know that a great deal of the litter that ends up in the marine environment comes from the land, and we must proceed with our work on that, because marine conservation is particularly important to us. We have continued to extend our blue belt, not only around the this country’s coastline but in overseas territories. As my hon. Friend pointed out, a general election will take place in the middle of the oceans conference, but I can assure him that the interests of the United Kingdom in providing global leadership will be well represented.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

While the great repeal Bill may bring short-term stability and a working statute book when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, it remains to be seen whether this Government, or indeed future Governments, will take any action to erode the UK’s existing environmental policies. What assurances can the Minister give the constituents who have written to me expressing deep concern about environmental protections post-Brexit?

[Dr Coffey]

I can only continue to try to assure the House, and the hon. Lady’s constituents, that we made it very clear in the manifesto on which we stood in 2015 that we wanted to be the first Government to leave the environment in a better state than the one in which we found it, and that is what we will do.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

On 24 November 2015, the then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), announced that the UK Government would ban lion trophy imports by the end of 2017. What progress has been made in that regard, and what reductions in trophy lion hunting does the Minister expect to be made following the review of international treaties when the UK has left the EU?

[Dr Coffey]

I did not quite catch the opening of the hon. Gentleman’s question, when he referred to something from 2015, but I assure him that all these imports are undertaken on a case-by-case basis and that we continue to work with other countries to ensure that we conserve important species throughout the world. It is a key issue in which the UK is a global leader. We will continue to work with other countries and to have an influence.

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

4. What progress her Department has made on its plans to ban microbeads from certain products.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

7. What the timetable is for the ban on microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products.

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

The consultation closed on 28 February and we are currently examining the responses. Our intention is to introduce legislation this year, with a ban on manufacturing expected to apply from 1 January 2018 and a ban on sales expected from 30 June 2018, as was outlined in our proposals.

[Mrs Villiers]

I strongly support the Government’s plans to ban microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products, but they account for probably only about 4% of the micro-plastics polluting our rivers and oceans. What are the Government doing to tackle the other types of micro-plastics which we want to stop polluting our oceans?

[Dr Coffey]

The consultation also sought to gather evidence on the extent of the environmental impacts of micro-plastics from other sources. We are reviewing the responses to that consultation, and any new evidence will be used to inform actions to protect the marine environment. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are also looking at the litter strategy, the use of plastic bottles and on-the-go consumption, but I remind her that we need to be careful as we take that forward as a lot of microbeads and plastics are the outcome of, for example, recycled bottles that are made into fleece.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I was recently rummaging through my wife’s collection of shampoos, and to my horror I found a plastic container of Olay anti-wrinkle, anti-ageing lotion, complete with exfoliating microbeads. Obviously, neither the Secretary of State nor her Minister would ever need to use such a product, but will the Minister get on the telephone to the chief executive of Procter & Gamble and tell him that selling that sort of product is completely outrageous and that it should be withdrawn from the market at once?

[Mr Speaker]

The leisure pursuits of the hon. Gentleman are truly extraordinary.

[Dr Coffey]

What I find extraordinary is that Lady Bellingham, who is a flawless picture, would even need these products. I am sure my hon. Friend will be buying flowers later today to make up for this.

It is fair to say that we are working with manufacturers now and a lot of them are already starting to remove these products proactively. That is good news, but we want to ensure that that avoidable pollution is taken out of our environment permanently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

10. When her Department plans to begin its consultation on banning the trade in ivory.

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

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue and I share her concerns. She will recognise that we want to get the proposals right, and we will consult as soon as we can.

[Pauline Latham]

Does the Minister agree that when the policy is in place rigorous enforcement will be one of the most vital elements?

[Dr Coffey]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend: robust enforcement will be important to ensure that the rules are effective. She will recognise that the police and border agencies do an excellent job of enforcing the current rules. We will work with them on how best to enforce the new measures, but she will also recognise that our strategic approach to tackling the illegal wildlife trade is about enforcement, strengthening criminal justice and tackling demand, so that together we can help to solve the poaching crisis.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

11. What recent discussions she has had with fruit and vegetable growers on the seasonal agricultural workforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State be pushing for a total ban on ivory sales in the 2017 Conservative manifesto, equivalent to the unrealised pledge in the 2015 manifesto?

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

As I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) earlier, we are working carefully on the proposals and we hope to publish a consultation in due course.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), we in the west midlands are seeing a terrible spate of fly-tipping on a commercial scale, including of hospital waste and household waste. May I ask the Minister seriously to help the farmers with the costs of deterring these serious criminals from dumping such hazards on their land?

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. We know that fly-tipping is a particular problem at the moment, which is why the Environment Agency is working with councils and with farmers to try to prevent waste from being dumped in the first place. We will continue to pursue waste crime as an urgent priority. People who despoil our countryside and our streets deserve to be sentenced to the full, but we need the evidence to do that, which is why sometimes these things can take time to develop.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Apart from the EU citizens already here, does the Minister recognise that food processors will need to continue to recruit employees coming to the UK from other EU countries?

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Cleaning up the nation’s bus fleet is an important part of tackling air quality, but does the Secretary of State agree that smaller companies such as Southgate & Finchley Coaches in my constituency will need time to adapt, particularly where the cleanest vehicles are not yet available on the second-hand market?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is correct to point out that we need to work with industry. I know that the Department for Transport has been proactively working on plans for some time with manufacturers to make those improvements, so that as a nation we can make the technological changes to vehicle emissions that are important in improving our air quality.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—