Seagulls

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 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 Streeter.

A flock of seagulls can be a very frightening sight for many people when they anticipate being dive-bombed or attacked. Some may have thought that this would be a light-hearted debate, but hon. Members have been assiduous in raising genuine concerns and in painting a vivid picture of the problems caused by the high density of gulls in our coastal towns and cities as well as some places inland. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is well known in the House as the saviour of the hedgehog, but now he will be known as the scourge of the seagull.

The Government recognise that gulls can be problematic when found in high densities in urban areas—my hon. Friend mentioned the problems recently experienced in Plymouth. I fully understand that gulls can be a serious nuisance. Sensible and proportionate action should be taken by using the range of measures already available and by raising awareness about what works locally. We have heard many good examples of solutions today, but local councils especially will know best what works in their areas. A falcon may be suitable in one part of the country, but in other places we may need certain kinds of bins or sacks, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) pointed out—and as I experienced recently when I holidayed not in his constituency but in Salcombe, where we had certain kinds of waste to deal with.

This debate was headline news today. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) asked what we can do to raise awareness of the issue. Well, it has made “BBC Breakfast”, so that has raised some awareness. People may watch this debate live or on catch-up and headlines may follow in the media to make people realise what they can do.

[John Woodcock]

Does the Minister agree that it would be totally unacceptable, cruel and messy for people to adopt the solution that has been circulated on the internet of using bicarbonate of soda and bread? That is a completely unacceptable way of dealing with the seagull menace.

[Dr Coffey]

I completely agree. An hon. Member whom I will not name raised that idea with me this morning and I told them off, because it is not acceptable to endorse such a cruel way of tackling the issue.

Hon. Members have referred to gull behaviour and to the fact that the urban gull is starting to display unacceptable characteristics. A build-up of gull populations is often the result of a readily available food supply and the availability of attractive sites for roosting or breeding. Herring gulls and occasionally lesser black-backed gulls roost and nest on buildings, where—as we have heard—they may become aggressive, particularly when incubating eggs and rearing young. Their protective behaviour can result in attacks on members of the public who are in the street or who need access to roofs for maintenance purposes.

I understand that gull behaviour can have a negative impact on people’s lives in coastal towns and cities, including inland—we have heard about Cheltenham, for instance. However, by using common sense, we can deal with the issue effectively through existing legislation and practical local action. I am particularly keen to draw attention to examples of local authorities taking such positive action to manage gulls, but I first want to set the context of the conservation status of gulls.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will understand that although lesser black-backed gulls and herring gulls may cause problems locally, there are serious concerns about their conservation status at a national level. As has been pointed out, gulls, like all wild birds, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Despite their appearance of thriving in urban areas throughout the UK, breeding populations of the herring gull have declined sharply and populations of the lesser black-backed gull have declined at a number of important sites. The UK herring gull population fell by 55% between 1970 and 2002, despite increases in some urban populations. As a result, the herring gull is listed as a species of principal importance and has been red-listed as a bird of conservation concern, while the lesser black-backed gull is a conservation priority and is amber-listed. The great black-backed gull is a scarce breeding species in England, with a breeding population of less than 1,500 pairs and wintering populations also in decline; it now meets the qualifying criteria for amber-listing as a bird of conservation concern.

[Steve Double]

Is the Minister aware of a point that I made earlier? Part of the problem is that a gull living in a town has less than half the life expectancy of a gull living in the wild, and that is one of the reasons for gulls’ diminishing numbers. Getting them out of our towns and back where they belong is one way that we can address the declining population.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I agree that that is the outcome we want, but we cannot just wish the issue away by saying, “Let’s get them out of towns.” I also agree that this is a man-made problem, because people are feeding and have lost control of the situation. The messages that we are sending today and that are being sent by councils are important, because we need to get it across to people that by feeding these birds they are worsening the problem, rather than making their “new best friend”, which is how they might see it—it probably does not help that Hastings adverts make seagulls look cute.

We want to see these wonderful birds in their natural habitat, rather than in an urban habitat. When we see large numbers of them in certain urban areas, it may be easy to forget that their conservation status is under threat at a national level. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, given the decline in breeding populations and the pressures on them, there are no plans to change the legal protection afforded to gulls.

There has been some discussion about research—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport referred to the University of the West of England. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs looks forward to reading the university’s findings, and I am sure that we will comment on them in due course, if appropriate. As for the £250,000 grant, I am sure that my answer will disappoint my hon. Friends, but I do not believe that such research is currently necessary, because a wide range of tools are already available. However, DEFRA has commissioned research, which is still at an early stage, on the use of immunocontraceptives in a range of species, including birds. There are also possible evidence projects with Natural England, including a key project on gull life that aims to deliver special protection area site action and a full survey of urban nesting gulls. We are waiting to find out whether our bid for EU funding has been successful; we hope to hear by the end of March. A studentship has begun, led by Exeter University in partnership with the British Ornithological Trust and Natural England, and this summer fieldwork will commence that aims to understand differences in the urban and natural breeding populations of urban gulls. Research is already ongoing.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is being generous in giving way, but either we want these gulls in urban areas or we do not—and we are clear that we do not. She is clear on that as well, so is she interested in exploring the idea of a regional protected status for gulls that applies only outside urban areas where they are a menace and are not wanted?

[Dr Coffey]

I am afraid the law does not allow that—

[John Woodcock]

Then let us change the law.

[Dr Coffey]

It certainly will not be possible to do that until we leave the European Union, and I am concerned that opening up elements of regional protection might make the law unworkable. Nevertheless, let us consider that when the opportunity is there, in due course. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will return to this subject, although I am also sure that he will try to ensure that we never again have to debate these measures, by getting on with things.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I will just make a bit of progress, because I will talk about Scotland and Aberdeen—

[Kirsty Blackman]

My point was on the studies.

[Dr Coffey]

Okay; I give way.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Specifically on the studies, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who spoke from the Labour Front Bench, and I both mentioned the study undertaken in Scotland in 2010. I would appreciate it if the Minister had a look at that. I would also appreciate it if the contraceptives study that DEFRA is undertaking, which she has just mentioned, could be shared with the Scottish Government when it comes out.

[Dr Coffey]

I am quite sure that that research can be made available, and the research the hon. Lady refers to is well established and available for anybody to see.

The current legislation provides sufficient powers to take appropriate action to tackle the problems caused by gulls. It provides a range of methods that those authorised can use to manage birds humanely, and it permits population control, nest clearance and egg control. I assure the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that landowners can employ competent others to act under a general licence. While there are no provisions within current legislation to allow the control of birds specifically for the purpose of relieving nuisance or damage to property, the legislation allows for the control or disturbance of certain wild birds for particular reasons. Those most relevant to urban gull issues are if such action is taken in the interest of public health and safety, or to prevent disease.

Natural England’s general licence allows those authorised to kill or take lesser black-backed gulls and to damage or destroy the nests or eggs of lesser black-backed gulls and herring gulls to preserve public health or safety, or to prevent the spread of disease or serious damage to livestock and crops. These general licences have a very low regulatory burden. Those authorised do not need to apply to Natural England to make use of them, provided they comply with the licence conditions. These conditions include making sure that non-lethal methods are ineffective or impractical, and users do not need to report any action undertaken to Natural England.

Where an individual cannot undertake the control required under a general licence, it does not mean they cannot take action, but they would need to apply for an individual licence to do so. Natural England commonly issues individual licences to permit the control of gulls for health and safety purposes. On average, it issues 17 individual licences for herring gull control for health and safety purposes annually, and it grants most of the applications that it receives. Indeed, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 also provides for action to be taken without a licence if the action in question is urgently necessary, such as preserving public health and safety. This allows a person to take action in a genuine emergency without fear of committing an offence, where it would not have been possible for them to have predicted the issue and to have acted under a licence. I understand that between 2014 and 2017, Natural England issued 10 individual licences in Devon to permit the control of large gulls, in addition to the general licences.

While licensing control of birds populations can help to control the number of gulls, we should not rely solely on a licensing approach to control gull populations. We should look at other measures to manage the problem in a sustainable way. Local authorities, businesses and individuals are able to take a range of actions to manage urban gull populations. We encourage all local authorities and businesses to help to address the problem by, as has largely been pointed out, removing sources of food such as fallen fruit and accessible household waste, using bins with secured lids, ensuring that domestic animals are not fed outside, using birds of prey to scare gulls, and providing local education measures. In all cases, individuals and local authorities concerned about the effects of gulls are recommended to seek advice from Natural England’s wildlife licensing unit, which offers free advice to those experiencing problems with gulls. Local teams have the knowledge and expertise to help.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is aware of some of the excellent practice across the country. In his own county, East Devon District Council has introduced a range of current control measures—I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) is in his place, I think for the next debate. These measures include using litter bins in seaside towns with secure openings to prevent scavenging, displaying posters in seaside towns and distributing them to local food businesses—

[Oliver Colvile]

Will my hon. Friend give way for a moment?

[Dr Coffey]

No, I am afraid that I need to make progress. I know that I am pointing out great things that East Devon, rather than Plymouth, has done; nevertheless, I feel I need to say it.

Posters in seaside towns can inform residents and tourists of the risks of feeding seagulls. Other control measures include offering targeted advice to property owners on methods of protecting their own buildings. In addition, East Devon’s seaside towns have their refuse collected earlier in the day during the summer—I say that to answer a point made by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). Those towns have their refuse collected earlier in the summer, which successfully reduces littering caused by seagulls.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning what East Devon is doing. Of course, we have problems in Exmouth, Sidmouth and other seaside holiday towns. Does she think that other local authorities would do well to learn from what East Devon is pioneering?

[Dr Coffey]

That is a fair point. I also point out the example of Herefordshire, which is not too far away from my right hon. Friend’s constituency. Herefordshire County Council has taken sensible and effective steps, such as removing gulls nests and eggs from April to August, which has meant that the number of pairs of breeding gulls has dropped considerably, from 500 in 2008 to approximately 200 in 2015.

The Local Government Association is well placed to share best practice on this issue. However, I must disappoint the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) by saying that central Government cannot provide additional resources on this matter. Having said that, it so happens that one of my councillors from Suffolk Coastal Council, Councillor Andy Smith, is chair of the coastal special interest group at the LGA, and I will ask him to consider this matter. I will also make sure that he invites councillors from inland towns as well as from coastal towns to contribute.

I am grateful to all Members for debating this issue and raising their constituency concerns. I encourage local authorities to continue to work together to share examples of methods and techniques that successfully deal with the issue of gulls in seaside towns and cities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport referred to “Desert Island Discs”. I insist that he has a record from that excellent Liverpool band, A Flock of Seagulls. My particular favourite is “The More You Live, The More You Love”, but he can refer to my contribution to find more song titles that he might wish to know about.

I hope that my hon. Friend understands that, although this issue is important, a lot of the action to deal with it must be taken locally and individually, and we must strike a balance between protecting species such as gulls and also fulfilling our international commitments, while mitigating the impacts of such species in our towns and cities.

I am sure that many hon. Members will be able to go back to their councils and their constituents over-brimming with the ideas that we have heard about, including those from over the border in Scotland; we heard some great examples from there. In fact, a professor from Leeds University has said that Aberdeen was getting this matter right, including flying a bird of prey around one of the local sports stadiums before matches, such is the prevalence of gulls and the risk of their attacking. So there is plenty of good practice to share.

Mr Streeter, I hope that we never again have to debate this matter. Nevertheless, I am sure that we will return to it. As we have heard, these gulls are clever creatures, but I am sure that we can defeat this menace.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Oliver Colvile, you have a few minutes to respond.

Flood Defence Projects: South-west

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 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 Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on securing this debate on the management of flood defence projects in the south-west. He has spoken passionately on behalf of his constituents and the wider area. I note with concern his comments on Taunton Deane Borough Council and his long-standing concerns about its performance in regard to flooding. I also note his other specific concerns about possible sites for development. I am sure those words will have been heard clearly in Taunton Deane. He will understand that I am not going to take direct action, but I am sure that in moving forward, those concerns will be taken on board.

My hon. Friend may not be aware of this, but I hope he will join me in acknowledging the dedicated work of the Environment Agency’s flood and coastal risk manager for Wessex, Nick Lyness, who sadly passed away last month. Nick worked for the Environment Agency and its predecessors for more than 30 years. In that time he made a huge impact in helping to better protect the country from flooding. Nick had a personal hand in the Somerset flood action plan. He never lost sight of the fact that we are here to serve the communities and to ensure that we make things safer and better for them. Thousands of people have benefited from his tireless work even though they may not realise it. I am sure that those present today would also like to acknowledge the commitment that Nick made to the management of flood risk in the south-west.

I am aware of the impact that flooding can have on a community. I have supported my constituents in Suffolk following flooding in recent years. My hon. Friend has already acknowledged that I am absolutely committed to reducing the threat of flood risk. He will know that the Government continue to play a key role in improving protection for those at risk of flooding. We are investing £2.5 billion in more than 1,500 flood defences to better protect the country from flooding. That will protect more than 300,000 homes by 2021. We have increased maintenance spending in real terms over this Parliament to more than £l billion.

In the south-west of the country, the Government spent £169 million in the previous Parliament, providing better protection to more than 15,000 homes. Within our current programme of work to 2021, we are investing £176 million, which will provide better protection to more than 26,000 additional homes. I recently saw some of that good work on a visit to Exeter last December, where a new flood defence scheme is being constructed. It will provide better protection for more than 3,000 homes, and includes Government investment of more than £24 million.

My hon. Friend’s constituency is made up of a diverse range of watercourses and coastline, from the fast-flowing rivers and streams that start on Exmoor and in the Quantock hills, to the tidal River Parrett, which makes its way up to the Somerset levels, and the long length of coast from Porlock to the Steart peninsula. As he said, there is a history of flooding in the constituency, including the devastating flood that took place nearby in 1952, when 34 people lost their lives at Lynmouth and a further 420 were made homeless, and the more recent coastal flood in Minehead, in 1990. Everyone is particularly aware of what happened in the winter of 2013-14, when communities on the levels experienced widespread flooding, particularly within the Parrett and Tone river catchments. The Environment Agency estimates that there were 100 million cubic metres of floodwater covering an area of 65 square kilometres.

Following those floods, the Government provided more than £20 million to support actions in the Somerset flood action plan, which included the need for a new locally funded body to bring local flood risk management bodies together to work in partnership and undertake additional flood risk management work. The Somerset Rivers Authority was established in January 2015, bringing together partners to give real control over flood risk in the area. Supported by £1.9 million of start-up funding, the local authorities in Somerset were given the ability to continue to fund the SRA through additional council tax flexibility. We are working with the SRA on its long-term funding arrangements; my hon. Friend knows that I am working hard to make sure that, when parliamentary time allows, we will progress that legislation.

Some of the work that has already been led and carried out by the Environment Agency on behalf of the Somerset Rivers Authority includes improvements to the resilience and operation of both Northmoor and Saltmoor pumping stations and the preparation of an outline design to improve the capacity and flow of the King’s Sedgemoor Drain and the River Sowy, which will help to alleviate the pressure on the River Parrett and across the levels. A project that finished last autumn, adding two new culverts and weirs at Beer Wall, allows for better management of flood levels.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in the last Parliament, the Government invested £25 million in protecting homes. The current planned investment up to 2021 is more than £17 million. The regional flood and coastal committee, which has a majority of local authority members, decides the schemes to prioritise, making local choices and agreeing the final programme, which allows for local input into decisions on where investment should be prioritised.

I want to point out that there have been several other investments, including the Steart managed realignment scheme, the Cannington Outfalls project, the King’s Sedgemoor Drain and planned investment in the Parrett Estuary Cannington Bends project, the Cannington flood defence scheme, and the Curry Moor reservoir. The Environment Agency has also been making good progress looking at the different options for a potential tidal barrier on the River Parrett near Bridgwater. Local consultation has taken place with stakeholders. Once a preferred option has been chosen, public consultation is expected to start this spring. A barrier would help to ensure that Bridgwater is better protected from the tidal influences of the River Parrett. If the business case gains final approval, it is expected that the barrier will be constructed and in operation by the summer of 2024. We forecast that, if the business case allows, our investment will be £25 million. I hope my hon. Friend is assured that we take his constituency very seriously.

It is also right to point out that the Environment Agency has successfully implemented some natural flood management measures on the National Trust’s Holnicote estate within the Horner Water and River Aller catchments of my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is also supporting the Hills to Levels partnership project, which is endorsed by the Somerset Rivers Authority, the Royal Bath and West of England Society and led by the south-west’s farming and wildlife advisory group. That project is considering the potential for natural flood management measures to slow the flow in some of the tributary catchments of the Rivers Parrett and Tone and west Somerset rivers and will be delivered over the next four years.

New flood defences only form part of the picture for the management of flood risk and the flood action plan for the Somerset moors and levels and dredging has happened along the Rivers Parrett and Tone. In 2016, the Environment Agency dredged a further section of the River Parrett on behalf of the SRA. As a consequence, since 2015, 99 km or 60 miles of desilting was carried out in Somerset by the Environment Agency, jointly with the SRA and the all-important internal drainage board. Although dredging assists in providing some additional relief from high river flows, it is not a solution in its own right and will always be considered carefully with other elements.

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) here and am grateful for his interest with regards to work on protection. On the national flood resilience review, it is worth setting out on the record that we continue to follow up on the actions of that review—we were certainly better prepared over this winter to deal with the risks. We continue to invest in mobile flood defences and pumps. As has already been said, 1,200 troops have been on standby if councils need their help, and they were recently deployed in Lincolnshire and Norfolk.

With regard to Bridgwater and West Somerset, the Environment Agency has undertaken a robust assessment of the locations that are suitable for using temporary barriers. It assessed the practical implications such as road closures and flood risk benefit as well as ensuring that they do not make the flood worse. A temporary defence deployment plan is currently being prepared for Croscombe, which was hit by flooding recently.

A key part of the national flood resilience review was having infrastructure providers reviewing the resilience of their key assets. They identified and protected their assets with temporary defences this winter while longer-term solutions are implemented. We have also continued to work with the private sector to develop a new flood resilience action plan, which illustrates to homeowners and business owners some straightforward measures they can take to improve the resilience of their property to flooding, as well as enabling them to get back in far more quickly if they are unfortunately flooded. Those can be simple measures, such as air-brick covers, or more substantial works, such as installing a pump, having solid floors or installing wiring so that plug sockets are higher up the wall.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) referred to the situation in Whimple in his constituency. I understand that he met representatives from Network Rail and the Environment Agency last summer to discuss the issues. I am aware that the project currently under consideration is eligible for £600,000 of Government investment under the partnership funding policy. There is currently a shortfall, which will be required to be secured. I note that the regional flood and coastal committee has provisionally offered to help with a contribution of about a third of that amount from their local levy fund, and I am sure that he will continue to work with local partners to raise the additional funding required.

My right hon. Friend referred to a specific issue with the railway line and the discussions with Network Rail. I will ask the rail Minister to look into this matter with Network Rail. I have been advised that if the construction method chosen avoids the need for a track closure, the threat of the fines is no longer there. I recognise, however—as many of us who deal with Network Rail will do—the challenges of what we think of as common sense getting tied up in bureaucracy. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will refer the matter to the appropriate Minister, who I believe will be able to cut through some of the evident red tape.

This has been a very useful debate to consider the particular situation in the south-west and especially in this very special part of Somerset. I hope I have been able to show my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset that plans are under way to address flooding issues. I thank him for his praise of the Environment Agency. I recognise and agree that it is a different beast from what it was several years ago, when I first became an MP. A lot of that has to do with local leadership, which will now sadly be lacking due to Nick’s unfortunate death, but it also stems from the leadership of Sir James Bevan and his team, including people such as John Curtin, in addressing the issue.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

The Minister has made my point for me. I was going to praise the new chief executive, the former high commissioner to Delhi in India, Sir James Bevan, who has brought a fresh attitude to the Environment Agency.

[Dr Coffey]

That is why the Government are standing behind the Environment Agency. Although the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not entirely welcome our response, I believe that when there is good leadership getting on with the job, disruptive change is unnecessary when we are trying to do our best to protect more homes and more residents, especially when my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset recites examples of where he feels that local action could be better than it is and impacts on his own constituency. I assure him that the Environment Agency will continue to work with him and hon. Members from all parties to reduce flood risk and to work collaboratively to help deliver projects in the area.

Question put and agreed to.

Domestic Ivory Market

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 6th February 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, Mrs Main. As has been pointed out, we last debated this matter in Westminster Hall on 8 December 2016 and since then a further 30,000 people have signed this petition created by Ellen Cobb and chosen for debate by the Petitions Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for opening the debate and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond.

It is clear that all of us here are united in our goal to stop the poaching of elephants that are being slaughtered for their ivory. Elephant numbers in most African states have seriously declined over the last decade. The brutal actions of criminals are endangering the survival of one of the world’s iconic species. That is why the Government are already taking action to end poaching, involving proposals for legislative action, which I hope will be consulted on very soon. We are working in the international community to provide global leadership to reduce the demand for ivory and direct action on enforcement, tackling the issue at source and through illegal wildlife trade channels.

Illegal wildlife trade is a global issue that can be effectively tackled only with co-ordinated international action. The UK’s rules on ivory have their basis in the international CITES agreements, implemented via EU legislation, although UK rules are already stronger than required by CITES and the EU. We do not permit exports of any ivory tusks given the obvious potential for such international trade to be used to bring illegal, recently poached ivory tusks on to the market. We expect shortly to publish our consultation and a call for evidence on proposals to extend a ban on the domestic sale of ivory and the enforcement of such a ban. I like to think that the House will see then that our initial proposals will be among the toughest in the world.

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) aid that while legal ivory trade in pre-1947 items continues, there will be an illegal ivory trade. That is true, but it is not the right question. The question is—perhaps the Minister can help with this—what is the evidence that if there is no legal ivory trade of pre-1947 items, there will be no illegal trade?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I understand the argument that people have made about any market at all, and many of the examples cited today still allow a market in ivory. It will be important, in the call for evidence, for people to come forward and demonstrate that point, for the reasons I hope to set out.

Last September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans for a ban on the sale of worked ivory that is less than 70 years old—from 1947 onwards. That demarcation is used across Europe and was chosen because it was 50 years before the EU wildlife trade regulations came into force to regulate trade and protect endangered wildlife. By using that date for their proposed ban on the sale of ivory, the Government are on solid legal ground to bring a near-total ban into effect quickly. For control and enforcement, there are advantages in working with a date already used by the trade and the rest of the EU to draw a dividing line.

I recognise that many people want the UK to take an even stronger stance on the ivory trade and, as the petitioners demand, that there be no trade at all in ivory. Let me reassure the House that the Government are open to views on the matter. That is why the consultation will include an open question on this, with a call for views and evidence. I am regularly informed, and have been in this debate, that other nations have banned trade, so why have we not yet done so? I think that it would be helpful to set out to the House what is happening around the world.

The US has introduced what has been described as a near-total ban. The US Government can act only at federal level, and their ban covers trade internationally and between states, although it does not affect trade within states. The ban prohibits trade in ivory items that are under 100 years old and continues to allow the trade in pieces older than 100 years, as that is the US’s legal definition of an antique. The federal ban also provides for a range of exemptions, including musical instruments and items that contain a small amount of ivory. Four states have so far chosen to apply similar controls within their state. Those restrictions do not seem to apply to establishments for educational or scientific research purposes, which includes museums. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) referred to action by California, but he will recognise that trade continues.

[Mr Owen Paterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I am really sorry, but my right hon. Friend spoke for nearly half an hour and I have limited time to reply.

Last year, France made the bold announcement that it would permit trade in pre-1975 ivory only on a case-by-case basis, but since then it has consulted on the scope of its ban and is now considering exemptions for pre-1947 items and musical instruments. We look forward to hearing the final outcome of its consultation.

We welcome the announcement by the Chinese Government of their intention to close China’s domestic ivory market by the end of 2017. Again, we look forward to hearing more details of their intentions for the ban, including what the exemption allowing the auction of ivory “relics” will cover. However, the welcome closure of the carving factories this year will be a huge step in stopping the creation of new worked ivory artefacts.

Hong Kong was mentioned. The Hong Kong Government announced plans to phase out the domestic ivory trade, but it is my understanding that, again, there will be an exemption for antiques, which has still to be defined. Domestic sale will be allowed with a licence.

I have met groups on all sides of the debate, from conservation experts to antiques sector representatives, and will continue to do so. It matters that when considering the final outcome of the consultation, including the calls to go further, we know that there is a strong likelihood of legal challenge and so we would require further understanding of the impact on individuals, businesses and cultural institutions that own these items and the interaction with the conservation of elephants today. As has been pointed out, ivory is found in works from the art deco period and in musical instruments, often forming a small proportion of the item. The kind of assessment that we would have to consider would include how prohibiting the sale of a 17th-century ivory carving of the flagellation of Christ prevented the poaching of elephants today.

I note what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said on a total ban, as indeed have other hon. Members, and what he said on museums. I am not sure whether he would go further and seek the destruction of ivory pieces, including the throne given to Queen Victoria—I am not sure whether he wants to go that far. However, I stand by the comments that I made previously about display, and I was referring particularly to the display of raw tusks, which still happens.

[John Mann]

The Minister could find out my views if she could tell us when the consultation will take place. On 8 December, we were told “shortly”. She has just said “shortly” again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is still shortly.

[John Mann]

We want to know when—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Dr Coffey]

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

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

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

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

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

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

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

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

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

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

Environment Council

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 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 Brussels on 19 December along with the Minister for Climate Change and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd).

I wish to update the House on the matters discussed.

EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)—progress report.

The Council undertook a full roundtable debate on the EU emissions trading system, on the basis of the presidency’s progress report. Ministers set out respective policy positions, and called for agreement at the next Environment Council in February. The presidency regretted that it had not been able to achieve a general approach, but felt that progress had been made on a range of technical issues. It identified the main issues to be resolved as rules for supporting sectors at risk of “carbon leakage” (where production relocates outside of the EU as a result of carbon costs); tackling the over-supply of emission allowances to provide a more meaningful carbon price signal; and management of the funds which support decarbonisation of the EU’s industrial and energy sectors. The Commission drew attention to the recent ENVI Committee vote in the European Parliament, setting out that this showed compromise was possible on ETS, and called on the Council to match the European Parliament’s timetable in order to allow trilogues to start in March. It highlighted the importance of reaching agreement on the EU ETS directive in order to demonstrate progress in implementing the Paris agreement and in providing business and investor certainty.

The UK thanked the outgoing presidency for its hard work and called on the Council to maintain ambition and pace under the Maltese presidency, with a view to finding consensus. The UK’s main priorities were addressing the surplus of allowances and strengthening the carbon price signal via an amendment to the market stability reserve; targeting carbon leakage protection to those genuinely at risk; ensuring that the modernisation fund was based on clear, collaborative governance; avoiding the infringement of member states’ fiscal sovereignty through provisions to allow member states to provide compensation for the indirect costs of EU ETS; and alleviating as much administrative burden as possible without undermining environmental integrity.

AOB—Effort Share Regulation and Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation.

The presidency gave an update on the state of play of these live legislative negotiations following publication of the Commission proposals in July 2016.

AOB—Communication on Clean Energy for All Europeans.

The Commission outlined the objectives and content of its recently published “clean energy package” and communication on clean energy for all Europeans.

AOB—Report on recent international meetings: UNFCCC Marrakesh, 7-18 November (COP22).

The presidency outlined the progress made at UNFCCC COP22 in Marrakesh in November. The Commission underscored its commitment to making progress on the 2030 climate and energy framework.

The protection of human health and the environment through sound management of chemicals—Council conclusions.

The presidency underlined the importance of the Council adopting conclusions given the ongoing work in this area including at international level. All who spoke endorsed the conclusions but stressed points of importance, including the ongoing regulatory fitness check (REFIT) of REACH, the commitments made under the 7th environmental action plan, the links to the circular economy package, the need to address endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and more consumer information.

The UK stressed the need to ensure chemical policy continued to be based on a better regulation and a risk-based approach.

On this basis the presidency concluded the conclusions were adopted as drafted.

AOB—REFIT fitness check of habitats and birds directives.

The Commission informed delegations of its findings, presented in the recent staff working document on the nature directives, which noted that the directives were fit for purpose. The Commission noted that the EU should focus on smarter implementation. The UK welcomed the conclusions of the Commission’s fitness check (to improve implementation of the directives and not to reopen them) and called for more effective implementation together with the sharing of experiences on how to do this between member states. Many other member states made similar points and asked the Commission to actively focus on better tools and resources in order to achieve better implementation.

AOB—Outcome of International Meetings: Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), 66th Meeting of International Whaling Commission and COP9 UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.

The presidency and the Commission informed Council on the outcomes of these recent international meetings.

AOB—State of play of the Waste Package.

The Council took note of information from the presidency and the progress it had made on negotiations of the waste package. The Commission agreed there was good progress and expressed hope a deal could be reached with the European Parliament during the Maltese presidency. On the substance, the Commission supported a common methodology for calculating recycling targets, separate collection, the use of economic instruments and ambitious recycling targets. Other member states intervened on topics of interest, including conflicting views on the levels of targets and reuse within the package, the phase-out of landfill and the proposed calculation methodology.

The UK welcomed the progress made under the Slovak presidency and emphasised the need to agree definitions and calculation methodology before setting targets. The UK also called for greater flexibility in the application of provisions on the circular economy and, while being supportive of the principle of reuse, highlighted the bureaucratic hurdles its inclusion in reporting could entail.

AOB—Maltese Incoming Work Programme.

The presidency gave a short summary of its achievements over the last six months. Malta, as incoming presidency, then explained its priorities, including a desire to build on the Marrakech COP22, advance both ETS and non- ETS negotiations and continue work to amend the waste directives. Priorities also included a focus on marine issues, including a development of a plastic strategy in the context of the circular economy, work on the nature directives, amending the restriction of hazardous substances (ROHS) directive and preparations for conferences of the parties on the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and the Rotterdam convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.

Further Environment AOBs.

Council took note of an AOB from Austrian, French, Finnish and German delegations, supported by Czech Republic and Italy, which encouraged member states participation in next year’s European sustainable development week. Council also took note of an AOB from Hungary on the outcome of the Budapest water summit and an AOB information from the Commission on the communication on next steps for a sustainable European future. Poland presented an AOB on odour nuisance. The Czech Republic presented its AOB on the REFIT evaluation of the EU ecolabel.

On 23 June, 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.

[HCWS455]

Non-recyclable and Non-compostable Packaging

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It has been a very interesting debate on the petition, which was created by Teja Hudson and secured more than 74,000 signatures. It was chosen for debate by the Petitions Committee, and was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) with his usual aplomb. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) extensively shared his professional experience, which has helped to inform the debate.

Packaging is critical in allowing the sale and distribution of products in a safe, secure and hygienic manner. It allows us to eat a huge range of fresh food at any time of year and to extend the shelf life of products. As we have already heard, a cucumber can now remain edible for 14 days thanks to plastic wrapping. Packaging has also become key to supporting our lifestyles, in which we enjoy products in a convenient, consumer-friendly and appropriately portioned format. It allows retailers to provide us with a choice of products, and allows us to make choices about what products are right for us based on the information on the packet, through labelling and similar.

As a result of significant change in our lifestyles, and to both our purchasing and consumption preferences, the amount and types of packaging has increased dramatically in modern times, alongside the need for responsible disposal. Technically, most packaging is recyclable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby pointed out, the challenges are more evident for certain products than for others. Nevertheless, the essay question becomes, “Why is it that our recycling rates are not sky high?”

Businesses are encouraged to reduce waste in the first place by using appropriately sized packaging. Our regulations require businesses to ensure that packaging does not exceed what is needed to ensure that products are safe, hygienic and acceptable for both the packed product and the consumer. Those regulations apply to those responsible for the packing or filling of products into packaging, and to those importing packed or filled packaging into the UK from elsewhere.

Christmas presents and Easter eggs have been discussed extensively. While some of the packaging for Easter eggs is clearly for branding purposes, a considerable amount is functional. A hollow chocolate egg is somewhat fragile, and the packaging allows for a product to be presented to the consumer intact. Of course, many brands of egg are available, but the challenges of packaging, for example, a Dairy Milk egg are quite different from the challenges of packaging a Creme Egg, which is solid and has substance inside.

Our regulations already place a legal obligation on UK businesses that make or use packaging to ensure that a proportion of the packaging they place on the market is recovered and recycled. Each activity throughout the packaging supply chain, from the original producer to the packager to the retailers, carries a different proportion of the responsibility to reflect the potential impact that a producer may have. For example, sellers of goods have 48% of the responsibility for recycling packaging, with packers or fillers having 37%. Those regulations create an incentive for companies to use less packaging, and to ensure that their packaging can be recycled at the end of its life, because it reduces their costs of complying with the regulations. In 2014, almost £20 million of revenue from the obligations paid by businesses was used specifically to help plastics recycling. Our targets for plastic packaging recycling are set to increase by 2020, which should provide a further incentive.

Why is our recycling rate not sky high? Consumers need to be able to dispose of waste responsibly, and many do so at home, while on the move and while at work. As we have heard, plastics come in all shapes, sizes and formats. While all councils are required to offer recycling of plastic bottles, several councils inform us that it is not economically worth while for them to collect and recycle some formats, such as yoghurt pots or ready meal trays. They also inform us that local reprocessing infrastructure may be limited; that the type of reprocessing needed could create different environmental impacts that outweigh the resource efficiency benefits; and that there may be a lack of end markets for some types of recycled materials. There is also the problem of contamination, which can make the contents of an entire recycling bin unfit for recycling.

[Mark Pawsey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that fluctuations in the exchange rate may now provide additional incentives for manufacturers to use recycled material, as it will be proportionately less expensive?

[Dr Coffey]

I agree with my hon. Friend. However, we both worked in industry for some time, and the idea that a strategy could be changed based on temporary changes in exchange rates is unlikely, owing to the required amount of capital investment. Nevertheless, if there is an opportunity appropriately to design products so that it does not matter whether virgin or recycled materials are used, I am sure companies will take advantage of those short-term measures to do so.

A great deal of work is being done by some local authorities to improve their recycling facilities and collection, and I congratulate those that are doing well, but I challenge the view that recycling in densely packed urban areas is difficult, or that local authorities cannot do more to improve recycling rates. We know that they can, and that many are delivering high levels of recycling and are actively exploring what can be done to extend services, even in challenging circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby referred to energy from waste. I caution against some of what he said. In environmental terms, it is generally better to bury plastic than to burn it. The opposite is true of food—it is better to burn it than bury it. We need to be careful about what incentives we push.

I will try to come to some of the shadow Minister’s questions—if I do not cover them in my speech, I will ensure I refer to them before the end. I reassure her and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South that a lot of work has been done over the past 20 years to improve the recycling, and the recyclability, of packaging. We have largely worked through the Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP—for many years to increase the quantity and quality of materials collected for reuse and recycling, including through campaigns like Recycle Now and through implementing the Courtauld commitment.

We continue to work through WRAP to develop and deliver activities to support the use of recycled materials in new products, and to encourage activities to stimulate its demand. Its industry advisory group recently published a framework for greater consistency in recycling. The vision is that, by 2025, packaging will be designed to be recyclable where practical and environmentally beneficial, and will be clearly labelled to indicate whether it can be recycled. Actions from that framework aim to identify opportunities for rationalising packaging, and for more and steady end markets for recyclable packaging, and to help local authorities to recycle a greater variety of materials, particularly plastics.

The hon. Lady referred to what is happening with that programme. WRAP is working with a number of local authorities. My top priority in the Department is air quality and my second is tackling urban recycling. It matters that we try to encourage more of our councils. She referred to Wales, which has taken a regulatory approach in this regard, but we are not yet persuaded of that. I do not want just to apply a stick to councils, but for all of us—it does not matter which party we represent—using fewer resources in the first place and being able to recover, recycle and reuse them is the right thing for our environment. There are other incentives and we want to encourage not only businesses to play their part, but councils to make the process as easy as possible for householders.

One of the biggest things I have learned since coming to my role is how much our recycling rates are due to organic waste. Much of it is due to garden waste. People do not think that putting their garden clippings out is part of recycling, but that is how it is counted, and it is where we saw a drop last year. Nevertheless, we want to continue encouraging councils to extend the number of products they will recycle by making it as easy as possible.

It is ultimately for businesses to decide what packaging materials they use to supply products to customers, and for customers to make choices on the products they buy. I am delighted to see the recent pledges by a number of multinational businesses to significantly improve the recyclability of their packaging. As has been outlined, more than 40 companies have signed up to a global action plan to rethink and redesign the future of plastics, starting with packaging. The recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation analysed the problem well and will help to galvanise companies into further action on this issue.

I used to work for Mars and I am pleased that it is part of this initiative. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) referred to coffee capsules. The report stressed that they are part of the 30% of packaging that is challenging to tackle. Nevertheless, I hope that Nestlé, which makes some of the finest products in the world, will apply some of the finest brains to make sure that it addresses the issue. Otherwise, we need to increase consumers’ awareness that Nespresso capsules, which are marketed by the gorgeous George Clooney—I know he is a married man, Mr Bone—are not recyclable today.

Unilever gave a commitment to ensure that all plastic packaging will be fully reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. I commend it on that and I note its commitment to reduce packaging weight by one third by 2020. It has made a commitment to use at least 25% of recyclable plastic content in its packaging by 2025. It would be good to see even more than that.

These commitments and future products will need to be matched with the right recycling infrastructure, the right consumer buying and recycling behaviour, and the right end markets for recycled materials. We will continue to work on our policies to encourage all these things, and to encourage others to do the same. I am pleased that waste is one of the six infrastructure priorities being focused on by the National Infrastructure Commission; I know that senior waste industry figures also welcome that. It will help to inform our longer-term policies but, most importantly, we should all be striving for less waste being produced in the first place.

Most of what I have discussed refers to packaging that can be recycled and I am conscious that the petitioners also referred to compostable packaging and the use of bioplastics. While attractive on the surface, this is a considerably more complex issue. Biodegradable materials must be properly disposed of if the benefits of such technologies are to be fully realised. If biodegradable packaging is put in the domestic waste bin, it is likely to end up in landfill and break down to release methane, which is obviously not good from a carbon emissions point of view. If biodegradable packaging is mistakenly recycled with other plastics, it has the potential to damage the quality and integrity of the new products made from the recycled plastic—for example, damp-proof courses in houses.

However, biodegradable or compostable plastic that degrades fully without causing harm in the natural environment would clearly be desirable. My colleagues at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are currently seeking input to help to shape a UK bioeconomy strategy, including how standards for new materials, such as bioplastics, could be used to help promote growth and innovation in the bioeconomy.

Reference has been made to litter, which is part of the petition’s message, by speakers today. The Government are developing a litter strategy for which my noble friend Lord Gardiner is the responsible Minister. As was indicated in the House last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is personally interested in the issue of marine litter, and I am sure there will be opportunities during the development of the strategy to address such matters.

Another question raised today was the EU and environmental law. I assure the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) that our intention is to bring existing EU law into UK law on the day we leave the European Union.

On the circular economy package, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid out several times, while we are members of the European Union we will negotiate in good faith; I am approaching the negotiations on the eventual outcome for the circular economy in a way consistent with that. On the timing, it is likely that we will still be in the European Union, which will mean that we are required by directive to introduce it into law, but we are approaching the matter in good faith while negotiating quite hard on behalf of the United Kingdom and what we think is achievable and realistic. First, we must agree a definition of “recycling”. There are many different views.

On additional plans for recycling targets, I have laid out some of the work by WRAP, but I am conscious that, as I visit more and more councils and discuss air quality regularly, another issue is their approach to achieving their recycling targets.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) referred to the coffee cup incentive. Several retailers offer an incentive for people to use reusable cups. I must be careful not to endorse one company’s products, but in my constituency a company, Frugalpac, which I have visited in my capacity as an MP, does well and there may be other sources of coffee cups for retailers. I am pleased that Frugalpac seems to have created technology to make recycling easier.

There are regulations on producer responsibility. We will be looking at that in future.

We have referred to the circular economy negotiations. The Government are absolutely committed to hit the 50% recycling target. When we leave the European Union, I genuinely believe that what the hon. Member for North Tyneside refers to as the circular economy and we call resource efficiency could be a genuinely competitive advantage for UK plc. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has referred to that. Some companies are already showing a lead. The best companies are achieving these things because it is good for the company, good for consumers and good for the environment.

We have seen a tremendous transition over the past decade from a throwaway mindset to one that focuses on extracting the value from resources more than ever before, but we must continue with this trend, finding new and innovative ways to extract even more value from our resource assets and protect the quality of our environment. Companies, consumers and the environment will benefit. That is the triple crown for which we all strive.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I invite David Mackintosh to wind up in the hour and three quarters we have left.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to improve air quality.

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

The United Kingdom complies with the EU legislation for nearly all air pollutants, but faces challenges in achieving nitrogen dioxide limits, along with 16 other EU member states. That is why we have committed more than £2 billion since 2011 to reduce transport emissions and the autumn statement provided a further £290 million to support greener transport. We should all recognise that air quality is actually improving, but we recognise that we need to go further and faster and will be consulting on a new national plan by 24 April.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but I believe the Secretary of State is aware of the GB Freight Route rail scheme, which will take up to 5 million lorry journeys off Britain’s roads each year, save thousands of tonnes of emissions, and radically improve air quality. Will she and her Ministers use their good offices to press the case for GB Freight Route in Government?

[Dr Coffey]

With Felixstowe in my constituency, I am fully aware of the advantages of rail freight. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the Departments for Transport and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely together on these matters. Shifting freight onto rail is a key part of any future strategy.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Is the Minister aware of the controversial proposal for a cruise liner terminal at Enderby Wharf in east Greenwich? With the air quality impact of that proposal in mind, will she tell us when the Government expect the recently promised review into shore-to-ship power and the assumptions that underpin port development to conclude?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his own council carried out an environmental impact assessment, which it considered when looking at that particular planning application. As he will also be aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, is committed to looking further at what can be done, and I am sure that he is making progress with that.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that British businesses have made great strides in recent years in producing technologies that enable us to improve air quality, such as the taxis that now run in Birmingham on liquefied petroleum gas and the adaptation of buses that have significantly cleaned up the air in Oxford Street?

[Dr Coffey]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Her vast experience in this area is added to by her local knowledge of the city of Birmingham and the support going on there. This Government made a substantial transport settlement with the previous Mayor of London, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), and I know that air pollution has improved on Oxford Street over the past year, which is thanks specifically to the grants that were provided.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

Camelford in north Cornwall suffers from very high levels of pollution, because of the A39 running straight through its town centre. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Camelford Town Council on the work that it has done to address the air quality? Will she work with the council and me to tackle the problem in the town?

[Dr Coffey]

I have made it clear in this House before that national Government have their part to play in finding solutions to tackle local congestion issues, but so too does local government. Of course we will continue to work with my hon. Friend on that matter.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Royal College of Physicians has stated that air pollution contributes to approximately 40,000 deaths in the UK every year, and that diesel emissions have been poorly regulated. What progress are the Government making in that field?

[Dr Coffey]

Nitrous oxide levels have been falling, but I recognise that it is not happening quickly enough. The previous Labour Government signed us up to achieve deadlines by 2010, and failed spectacularly. We are continuing to invest in this area and will continue to do so and work with devolved Administrations on specific issues in other areas.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to make real progress on air quality is to forge ahead with ultra-low emission vehicles. Given that 25% of the cars on Norway’s roads are either electric or hybrid, does she agree that we need a real turbo-charged boost to get ahead in this area?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The low-emission vehicle industry is a competitive advantage for this country, which is why the Government are backing it through the Office for Low Emission Vehicles and the many millions of pounds that have been spent on improving the charging infrastructure up and down this country.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Many happy returns, Mr Speaker, to both you and Rev. Rose.

The Government have lost the confidence of this House on air quality. More than 50,000 people are dying prematurely each year because of air pollution, and many more are suffering associated health conditions. With no guarantee from either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State that last December’s strict EU laws will be introduced post-Brexit, how can the country trust the Government to ensure cleaner air in future?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady refers to a lack of trust in this Government. I think that that is the pot calling the kettle black. It was the Labour Government who introduced fiscal incentives for people to switch to diesel cars, and it was the Labour Government who signed up to these guidelines. Air quality is better now than it was under a Labour Government. That is an uncontrovertible fact.

[Mr Speaker]

Or even an incontrovertible fact.

--- Later in debate ---

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

5. How many flood defence schemes are planned for construction as a result of Government investment up to 2021.

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

The Government are investing £2.5 billion between 2015 and 2021, delivering at least 1,500 new flood defence schemes and better protecting 300,000 homes. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, Government investment of £121 million is being made, delivering 18 schemes, better protecting more than 30,000 homes.

[Matt Warman]

I am afraid that I was overwrought with the excitement of your birthday, Mr Speaker, and forgot parliamentary procedure.

The Minister will know from the events of last week that my constituency is under great threat of flooding. I am sure that she will join the Prime Minister and I in praising the response of the emergency services under the threatening tidal surge. Does she agree, therefore, not only that the Boston barrier cannot come soon enough, but that it offers a huge economic opportunity that will allow Boston to be protected from flooding and to seize a new tourism dawn that could be improved with a lock?

[Dr Coffey]

What a “fentastic” idea. A design for the Boston barrier has been considered by the Environment Agency and is currently subject to a public inquiry under the Transport and Works Act Order. Alongside the famous Boston stump, it could be a compelling reason to ensure that we visit this special part of rural England. I personally extend my thanks to the Environment Agency, councils, emergency services and volunteers who helped to ensure that people were safe last weekend.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. Many small businesses across the UK that operate in flood risk areas are facing enormous flood insurance excesses. Will the Ministers please commit to persuading the Treasury to extend the Flood Re scheme for affordable insurance to small businesses? If there are floods again not only will individual companies go out of business; many high streets in my constituency might actually disappear.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that flood defences are a matter for his Government. He raised the same point in the Adjournment debate yesterday and if he had waited for my reply, he would have heard my response.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

7. What support the Government are making available for tree planting.

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

We all love trees. Woodland planting in England is supported through the countryside stewardship woodland creation grant. To further encourage tree planting we launched the second round of the woodland creation planning grant and the woodland carbon fund. We are committed to planting 1 million trees for schools during this Parliament in partnership with the Woodland Trust and other community trusts.

[Sir David Amess]

Happy birthday from the residents of Southend West, Mr Speaker.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Southend-on-Sea Borough Council on its memorial tree planting scheme, of which I am about to take advantage? Does she agree that planting a tree in memory of a deceased person is a fitting tribute and makes an excellent contribution to the overall quality of the environment?

[Dr Coffey]

I commend Southend-on-Sea Borough Council for its tree planting scheme, and I personally acknowledge my hon. Friend’s recent bereavement with the loss of his mother, Maud. I certainly agree with his tribute because trees can provide a longstanding reminder of the departed and offer bereaved loved ones a special place to visit that is living and growing. I know that from personal experience of the trees planted in Wrexham cemetery.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Having planted some 3,500 trees on my farm back home, I am aware of the incentives given by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Will the Minister indicate what long-term incentives there are for farmers to plant trees, and for the participation of community groups and schools in that process?

[Dr Coffey]

As I have outlined, the countryside stewardship scheme acts as an incentive for tree planting. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is leading by example but, as he understands, the encouragement in Northern Ireland is led by his Government there.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Perhaps planting a birthday tree would be a good idea, Mr Speaker.

Does the Minister agree that planting trees is an important part of keeping the whole environment in balance, and that the environment should be made a cornerstone of our post-Brexit agenda? There are enormous opportunities to sell our technologies worldwide and to show that we are world leaders. At home, we should weave the environment into everything to do with our economy and our social aims so that we increase productivity and security, benefit everyone and leave the environment in a better state than it was in when we inherited it.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of the tree, which can have multiple benefits, as she pointed out. Late last year, I visited St Vincent de Paul Primary School in Liverpool to support its tree-planting exercises. I can assure my hon. Friend that the environment is at the heart of the Government today, not just post-Brexit.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

8. What assessment she has made of the effect on the rural economy of the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

10. What plans her Department has to increase awareness of the potential benefits of the natural environment.

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

This Government established the Natural Capital Committee, which we re-established in this current Parliament. We will also be publishing our 25-year environment plan in due course. We want to help everyone to understand how a healthy environment improves their lives and how spending time in the natural environment benefits health and wellbeing.

[Oliver Colvile]

Live long and prosper, Mr Speaker.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have been running a national campaign to save the hedgehog. She may also know that 2 February marks National Hedgehog Day. What can she do to ensure that young people are involved in the campaign to save our wildlife, obviously including the hedgehog, in the run-up to 2 February?

[Dr Coffey]

I commend my hon. Friend for his continuing support of the hedgehog. The Government support efforts to make our gardens more hedgehog-friendly through the creation of havens, and the campaigns within local communities to work together to look out for the hedgehog, including that of BBC Suffolk; I encourage him to get BBC Devon to do the same. We do have a proud tradition, and we want to continue that with our next generation.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

Indeed, Mr Speaker. Many happy returns.

Hedgehogs and other wild mammals, and precious bird species, are currently protected under European Union regulations. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report on the effects on the natural environment of leaving the EU recommended a new environmental protection Act. Has the Minister had a chance to read the report, and what is her assessment of our recommendation?

[Dr Coffey]

I read it from cover to cover on the day it came out, as is appropriate for a Minister in serving the needs of the House. I can honestly say that our intention is to bring environmental legislation into law on the day that we leave the European Union. As a consequence, we see no need for any future legislation at this stage.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T2. May I endorse what the Secretary of State has said about the superb work done by the emergency services and other voluntary groups along the east coast? What are she and her Department doing to support community interest companies, which can harness both the public and private sectors in finding additional funds for coastal and other defences?

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

We as a Government continue to invest in flood defences right around our coasts—a feature that my hon. Friend and I share in our constituencies. I reiterate our thanks to our emergency services and the military who helped people at risk last year. We continue to invest so that fewer homes and businesses will be at risk in future.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I was originally told that the study by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit investigating the potential link between emissions from municipal waste incinerators and health outcomes would be published in 2014, then 2015. In October last year, through a parliamentary question, I was told that it would be published this year. Is the Minister confident that it will at last be published this year?

[Dr Coffey]

That is a timely reminder from the hon. Gentleman. I will look into the matter straight away and write to him.

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

T3. Will the Secretary of State agree to visit the “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering? It is a natural flood alleviation scheme part-funded by DEFRA, which saves the taxpayer about £15 million compared with a similar, traditional scheme. Will she meet the local flood authority and the Yorkshire dales partnership to see what has been done and what could be done with some of the £15 million that the Department has allocated to other, similar projects?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

T7. Following the success of the charge for plastic bags in reducing the amount of plastic going into our seas, and the welcome announcement on limiting the use of microbeads, the next big issue we need to address is single-use plastic bottles. Can the Secretary of State update the House on what plans she has to cut the number of plastic bottles polluting our seas and beaches?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the consultation on microbeads is out there. It contains a call for wider evidence on the need to tackle other plastics. We are developing a new litter strategy, which may well address this issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is personally interested in the matter and intends to set up an innovation fund that may explore new ideas to tackle it.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

T6. Under the common agricultural policy, an enormous amount of subsidy is used to encourage very intensive farming. Although subsidies to help farmers need to continue, could Ministers also look at some of the ideas for rewilding advocated by George Monbiot and others and see whether, after the common agricultural policy, our subsidies could encourage the restoration of the environment rather than its conservation?

Flooding: Ribble Valley

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this debate on flooding in the Ribble valley. He spoke passionately on behalf of his constituents, and painted a vivid picture of the events of Boxing day 2105 and beyond. He rightly paid tribute to the many individuals who came forward to help their neighbours and communities, particularly citing Gillian Darbyshire from the local Lions, as well as a number of other business people and local councillors—and, indeed, strangers. I am very aware of the impact that flooding can have on a community. I have supported my own constituents in Suffolk following flooding in recent years. Only at the weekend, when we had our own severe flood warnings, I was able to visit local communities who have also formed flood action groups like those that have been mentioned. It is important to pay tribute to those people who have taken charge of actions in their local community to help their friends in need.

As a bit of personal disclosure, I will always particularly welcome the contributions that strangers make. In 1998, when I was heading home to Liverpool, rather than Lancashire—although historically, of course, Liverpool was in Lancashire—I encountered my own flooding trouble. I had to climb out of my car, which was busy filling with water in the middle of nowhere, and knocked on the door of a house. I will always be grateful to the McDermotts of Honeybourne, who took me in for two days, after which I was able to make my way home. I am very conscious of the fact that flood risk can be very frightening for people, and the warm, loving presence of friends, and strangers, is something that never goes out of one’s mind.

The Government continue to play a key role in improving protection for those at flood risk. We are spending over £2.5 billion on 1,500 new flood defence schemes better to protect 300,000 homes by 2021. Over this Parliament, we have also been increasing maintenance spending, in real terms, to more than £1 billion.

As my hon. Friend said, there is a history of flooding in the Ribble valley, principally from the Rivers Ribble and Calder and the tributaries that run into them. He spoke extensively about the communities affected in his constituency, including Whalley, and Ribchester. Clitheroe, Bolton-by-Bowland, Slaidburn, Samlesbury, Higher Walton, and Walton-le-Dale have also been affected. It is fair to say that December 2015 was the wettest month on record, and the highest flows on record were observed in the Rivers Ribble and Calder during that month. Flood warnings were issued by the Environment Agency at Whalley and Ribchester, and temporary flood defences were deployed. As my hon. Friend will be aware, 432 properties in the Ribble valley were flooded, and about 2,600 right across Lancashire. I am aware that the communities he describes of Whalley, Ribchester, Higher Walton and Walton-le-Dale were among the worst affected, and Billington flooded from the River Calder for the first time. Thankfully, as he will also be aware, Low Moor, Slaidburn and Bolton-by-Bowland did not flood. Local communities expressed their gratitude for the flood defence works previously undertaken by the Environment Agency, protecting them from experiencing any flooding at that time.

Since that flooding incident, the Environment Agency has given one-to-one help and advice to over 100 residents in the Ribble valley. As part of the works to repair bank erosion at Whalley bridge, the Environment Agency contributed a significant sum to reduce flood risk by removing gravel from the river channel. Prior to 2010, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Environment Agency completed flood risk management schemes at Low Moor, Slaidburn and Bolton-by-Bowland, spending a total of £1.5 million in those areas. Between 2010 and 2015, the Environment Agency invested more than £200,000 in making properties in Whalley and Ribchester more flood resilient. That included working closely with the local council to offer grants to homeowners for property level flood resilience measures, including flood doors and airbrick cover. The properties that were unfortunately flooded were eligible for £5,000 recovery grants. Some of the homes that flooded had not been previously eligible for grants as they had no recent history of flooding.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. Will she ask the Environment Agency to look again at the arches by Allan Elliott’s house, where a lot of silt is building up? The Environment Agency will be well familiar with that. The silt should have been removed so that free-flowing water could more easily pass through, but that has not been done; I do not know why. This is causing grave concern to people in the area, because if it is not done and the river rises, there could be severe problems.

[Dr Coffey]

I do not know the details of that, but my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Environment Agency manager responsible for his area is in the Box today and will have taken careful note of what he has just said. My hon. Friend might be aware that a future scheme to protect Whalley from river flooding is in the development stage. It would cost approximately £1.4 million, and considerable work is being done with the Whalley and Billington flood action group and the local community to optimise the design of the scheme and to develop partnership options prior to a bid for funding. I think that that is the project to which he referred.

A review is ongoing of flood risk right across the River Calder, which will provide additional information to refine options for addressing that flooding. We expect to undertake a review of flood risk in Ribchester this year. A scheme to protect Clitheroe from flooding from Mearley brook will cost approximately £4.8 million, and work is taking place to develop partnership funding options prior to submitting a bid for funding. Lancashire County Council is developing a £2 million scheme to address surface water flooding in Whalley and Billington.

Overall, I am pleased that local partners are already working together to contribute to those schemes, alongside considerable Government investment, and work is continuing to bridge the current funding gap. I remind the House that under a Conservative-led Government, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), changed the funding policy to give every scheme that had a positive benefit-cost ratio a chance to secure some grant funding, rather than the old system of all or nothing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has referred to planning, and he should be aware that the national planning policy framework is specific about issues relating to planning in flood areas. The Environment Agency’s advice has been accepted in more than 98% of applications. I have looked carefully at the ones that were rejected by local councils, and that information is publicly available.

My hon. Friend referred to Redrow and his concern that the housing development in Whalley is failing to comply with planning conditions designed to reduce flood risk. As he has indicated, I expect the local authority to deal robustly with any developer that does not adhere to planning conditions. I know that my hon. Friend wrote to the Environment Agency about the matter. The Environment Agency does not have the necessary powers, but if there is more that my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government can do, we will do it. I will just say on the record that this is the second time today that Redrow has been raised with me as a developer not particularly fulfilling its conditions—in the other case, it is fulfilling a condition that simply does not work—so I will certainly be following up on that matter with my hon. Friends responsible for planning.

In terms of drainage, the Environment Agency leads on flood risk associated with culverted sections of main rivers in England. Where there are culverts, the EA will inspect them regularly, and operations staff will clear structures upstream of such culverts prior to flood conditions. Lancashire County Council, as both the highways authority and the lead local flood authority in Lancashire, leads on flood risk associated with highway drains and culverted ordinary watercourses.

In the village of Whalley, Lancashire County Council has been investigating the condition of the culvert that carries an ordinary watercourse—Wiswell brook— underneath King Street, to which my hon. Friend referred, in the centre of the village. The culvert has surcharged in the past and led to flooding, most recently on 21 November. When any works are deemed to be necessary to the culvert and associated infrastructure, bids for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding will be submitted by the council via the Environment Agency.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) spoke eloquently on behalf of her constituents. I thought it might be worth sharing where we are on the Preston and South Ribble flood alleviation scheme, to which she referred. At the moment, the costing for that is about £32 million. The scheme would better protect more than 3,000 homes and 600 other properties in the area from fluvial and tidal risk. It would also decrease flood risk at Walton-le-Dale, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. Further work is ongoing to assess whether the scheme could be extended to benefit Higher Walton.

As it stands, the scheme qualifies for about £17 million of Government grant-in-aid, and it requires £15 million of additional partnership funding on top of the contributions that the Environment Agency is working hard to secure. Many local businesses in this catchment area would benefit from the scheme. If my hon. Friends are in a position to assist with obtaining further partnership funding, it would go a long way to securing the viability of the scheme. I understand that the local enterprise partnership has been heavily involved in trying to secure funding for projects in Burnley and Lancaster. I encourage my hon. Friends to work with the LEP to consider potential moves for the scheme.

It is worth setting out for the House what we are doing more broadly to improve resilience and to ensure that we are better prepared this winter for whatever arises. No Government can promise that no one will ever be flooded again, but we can learn and act, and that is what we did with the national flood resilience review. The review was undertaken to assess how the country could be better protected from future flooding and extreme weather events. I can report that considerable progress has been made to help to prepare for future flood events. We have invested £12.5 million in mobile flood defences, which means that the Environment Agency now has 25 miles of new temporary defences, located across seven key areas and available to be deployed flexibly around the country, compared with just 5 miles available last year. There are 500,000 sandbags, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced, 1,200 troops were on stand-by if councils needed their help. In all three cases, they were deployed at the weekend.

With regard to the Ribble valley, the Environment Agency has undertaken a robust assessment of the locations that are suitable for using temporary barriers. It assessed the practical implications, such as road closures, and the flood-risk benefit, as well as ensuring that they do not make the flooding worse elsewhere. There are plans in place to use temporary barriers at Ribchester and Billington. Unfortunately, these barriers are unsuitable for Whalley, despite being used in 2015, a fact of which the local flood action group is aware.

Infrastructure providers have been reviewing the resilience of their key assets for communities of 25,000 people and above. They have been identifying where they can also protect these assets with temporary defences this winter, while longer-term solutions are implemented. I have been leading a series of weekly ministerial phone calls to ensure that we are in a good place. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred in particular to mobile phones. They have been a key part of ensuring that we are more resilient.

This means that the country has been better protected this winter—of course, the winter is not over yet—and services to our communities will be more resilient to flood events. The next stage of the review will focus on surface water flooding, which is a significant source of flooding, particularly in our cities and urban areas. The next stage will involve collaboration between the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, the water sector and other stakeholders with a key interest in managing this risk.

We have worked with the private sector to develop a new property flood resilience action plan, and I thank Peter Bonfield for leading that work. It illustrates some straightforward measures that homeowners and business owners can take to improve the resilience of their properties to flooding, as well as to enable them to get back in far more quickly if, unfortunately, they are flooded. These can be simple measures, such as in-built covers, or more substantial works, such as installing pumps, having solid floors or rewiring so that plug sockets are higher up the wall.

On insurance, my hon. Friend made a series of points about the presence of companies, quotes, the availability of assessors, the challenge of the risk being passed on and the problem of not being able to get to the end of the process. I will raise these issues with the ABI and share some of this with my hon. Friends in the DCLG, who are primarily responsible for the recovery from flooding.

On Flood Re, I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of access to affordable flood assurance. For those at high risk, whether households or businesses and their surrounding communities, I recognise that the matter is very important. Flood Re is already under way, providing relief for the thousands of households at high flood risk so that they can now access affordable flood insurance. I recognise that that will bring very real practical and emotional comfort to many. Fifty insurance companies, which is over 90% of the market, now offer access to Flood Re, and 53,000 households have benefited during its first six months. It is important to stress that this project is time-limited—it will last for 25 years—and is, in effect, funded by all other households paying towards it. That principle of taxation ensures we can support our communities.

On businesses, just last month the British Insurance Brokers Association launched a product designed to help small and medium-sized enterprises at high flood risk to access affordable insurance. By using very granular postcode data and recognising the benefit of property level resilience measures, it should prove a welcome solution for many businesses. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), who is no longer in his place, also raised that issue.

I want to give this product a chance to work, but I would welcome evidence about whether it is working. As I have pointed out in relation to Flood Re, there is the significant principle of taxation that means we can help each other. If we moved to the stage of asking businesses to start adding to their insurance premiums to help businesses in other parts of the country, that would be an unprecedented form of mutual business support. It would take a lot of evidence for me to say that that is the next necessary step, but I am open to the evidence and I want to hear from people. Should it prove that there is a need for additional action, I remain open to exploring what could be done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to European Union funding. I draw his attention to a written statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made on Monday 16 January, which sets out in considerable detail what has happened in relation to EU funding. Ultimately, we were going to receive a payment of £15 million. We now have to pay back £14.5 million due to ineligible expenditure relating to an application made in 2007. It therefore looks like we will end up with about half a million pounds. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to read the written statement in detail to explain that situation further.

I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) were able to provide more detail on the issue he raised, so that I can look into it. He should be aware of the £9.7 million allocated to the Morecambe wave reflection wall, which is due to be completed by 2019 and will protect more than 8,000 properties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) referred to the building issues and I agree that we need to follow up on them. Again, I will involve my hon. Friends from the Department for Communities and Local Government in that matter.

This has been a very useful debate to consider the particular situation in this very special part of Lancashire. I was born in the county of Lancashire and it will always be in my heart. I hope I have been able to show my hon. Friends that plans are under way to try to address the flooding issues. We have already seen the benefit of additional investment, including the use of the mobile barriers. I hope the House will join me in thanking the Environment Agency, our emergency services, council officials and the many volunteers involved in responding to the east coast tidal surge this weekend just gone. I am sure we are all relieved that the worst-case scenario did not happen, and are grateful for the work put in by so many people to ensure the potential impact was minimised.

The Environment Agency will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley to reduce flood risk in the area, and to work collaboratively to help to deliver projects locally. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House that I will listen to all the comments made today. The Government will continue to try to ensure that we are all as best protected from flooding as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

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

This has been an interesting debate, and I am grateful for all the contributions from right hon. and hon. Members. I hope to be able to cover all the many points that they have made.

Rural businesses in England contribute more than £230 billion to the economy, employing 3.4 million people. The contribution of sectors is as varied in the rural economy as it is in the urban economy. As we have heard today, the food, farming, fishing and tourism sectors play an important role in building rural communities and preserving and protecting the environment. In the countryside in particular, there are many small businesses which cover all sorts of industries—certainly a higher proportion than in urban areas.

The rural economy is vibrant and diverse, but it is not without its challenges. For example, productivity in predominantly rural areas is lower than it is in urban areas. While DEFRA’s responsibilities mainly lie with England, rural businesses and communities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland face similar challenges. Those challenges would be there regardless of our membership of the EU, and that is why we are already addressing them. That is why we launched the rural productivity plan, and why we are taking steps to improve life opportunities for those living in rural areas.

We have already done much to support and boost the rural economy. Nine enterprise zones in rural areas in England were set up last year, and a further six will start in April. Businesses that locate to an enterprise zone will receive business rate relief or enhanced capital allowances, and local enterprise partnerships can use the resulting increases in business rates to fund economic development in their areas. In the autumn statement, we doubled rural rate relief to 100%. That will give a much-needed boost to businesses, saving them up to £2,900 a year.

We are improving digital connectivity: 91% of premises can now access superfast broadband, and that is estimated to reach 97% by 2020 on our current delivery plans. Our universal service obligation of every premises receiving 10 megabits will be particularly important for remote rural communities. Reform of the electronic communications code, as a key part of the Digital Economy Bill, will help to increase rural coverage of mobile phones, and also the provision of fibre. Planning reforms that came into effect last year will enable industry to enhance existing masts and to upgrade and share equipment, which, again, will benefit mobile coverage in rural areas.

We are making it easier for people to live and work in rural areas. There are pilot programmes in parts of Northumberland and Staffordshire, providing 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds, and the national roll out is set for September this year. Under our plans for full implementation, every local authority in England will receive a minimum funding rate of at least £4.30 per hour, which will benefit many rural areas.

As was pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and for Salisbury (John Glen), we need to work on skills and future careers so that farming is an attractive industry and we provide the skills that are necessary to employers. I can assure them of our commitment to trebling the number of apprenticeships to encourage people into the food and farming industries.

Extensive reference was made to the need for access to the single market. My right hon. Friend Prime Minister made clear today that we would pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. She said that we were not seeking membership of the single market, but the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold agreement. It is important to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England for us to ensure that we take full advantage of the economic opportunities that we enjoy today.

There has also been considerable discussion about devolution. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reiterated, it is important that a Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations has been established so that Ministers from each of the UK’s devolved Administrations can contribute to the process of planning our departure from the EU. As has already been mentioned, we have received a paper from the Scottish Government, and we look forward to receiving another from the Welsh Government. Both papers will be considered, but I think it important to stress that our guiding principle must be to ensure that as we leave the EU, no new barriers to living and doing business within our own Union are created. That means maintaining the necessary common standards and frameworks for our own domestic market, and empowering the UK as an open, trading nation to strike the best trade deals around the world and protect the common resources of our islands. The Prime Minister has made absolutely plain that as we do that, no decisions currently taken by the devolved Administrations will be removed from them. It is very clear that there will be no power grab.

The subject of migrant workers was also raised today. As we draw up our plans to leave the EU, we are harnessing industry’s knowledge and experience, and ensuring that its voice is heard. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the Oxford farming conference, access to labour is an important part of our discussions, and we are committed to working with the industry to ensure that it has the right people with the right skills.

On EU nationals, a topic raised by SNP Members, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reiterated today the desire to see this issue resolved.

On future support, we have provided early guarantees on CAP payments, specifically on pillar one, so that farmers have certainty. We have said to farmers that they will receive the same level of financial support until 2020. I welcome the support of many Members on the opportunities to shape a bespoke agricultural policy for the needs of our nation. A Green Paper will be published in due course, giving everyone the opportunity formally to offer thoughts on its future design. I particularly like the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), whom I would expect to get good thoughts from as he is my predecessor. I am sure his three-pronged approach of thinking of the agricultural, environmental and social objectives with a focus on small farmers will get much support.

On CAP pillar two, the rural development programme and the fisheries fund, the Government will also guarantee funding for structural and investment funds projects which are signed before we leave and which continue after we have left the EU. This includes rural development programmes and the European maritime and fisheries programme. Funding for projects will be honoured where they provide good value for money and are in line with domestic strategic priorities.

These conditions will be applied in such a way that the current pipeline of committed projects is not disrupted, including agri-environment schemes beginning this month. Where the devolved Administrations sign up to structural and investment funds under their current EU budget allocation, the Government will ensure that they are funded to meet these commitments.

We are committed to acting on the decision taken by the British people to withdraw from the common fisheries policy and to putting in place a new fisheries regime. We want to use this opportunity to ensure our fisheries industries are competitive, productive and profitable, and that our environment is improved for future generations—cleaner, healthier and more productive. The Government will continue to deliver their commitments on sustainable fisheries and ending discards, and will work closely with industry in designing the future fisheries management rules.

Following EU exit, the UK will continue to be subject to international law on fisheries management. This includes the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement.

On leaving the EU, we will want to take our own decisions about how to deliver the policy objectives previously targeted by EU funding. As has been mentioned by several Members, EU funding is actually UK taxpayers’ funding, and we will be able to decide how that is spent in due course. Over the coming months, we will consult closely with stakeholders to review all EU funding schemes in the round to ensure that any ongoing funding commitments best serve the UK’s national interest, while ensuring appropriate investor certainty.

City deals and devolution have helped to improve local economies and we are gradually seeing more rural economies being boosted. In Scotland, the Government have given considerable support—£2.3 billion-worth—to the oil and gas industry in the last years alone. We should remember how much of the Scottish Government’s case for independence was made on the basis of a high oil price to support their economy. It is a good job that the Union has pulled together and supported the industry in these challenging times.

This has been an important debate highlighting the importance of the rural economy. What we heard from the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was, “We’re all doomed,” but far from it: as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated, Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it. We are determined to get the best deal for the British people on leaving the EU. We want a world-leading food and farming industry and the cleanest, healthiest environment for generations. We are clear that when we bring EU law into UK law that is non-negotiable and we will make sure that the environment is protected, if not enhanced, for future generations. That is why today I urge the House to reject the motion but to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Air Quality

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on a comprehensive and valuable report on the air quality crisis that we face in this country. I am pleased that the Committee is continuing to take evidence on DEFRA’s plans following the High Court ruling that the Government have comprehensively failed to address the issue.

There is a lot in the report, and I will briefly address a couple of its recommendations on vehicle emissions. The deterioration in the quality and safety of the air we breathe, particularly in cities such as Manchester, is increasingly acknowledged as a public health crisis. We know that air pollution causes 40,000 premature deaths a year, that air pollution is linked to cancer, asthma, strokes and heart disease, and that 3,000 of our schools are on sites with dangerous levels of air pollution.

The report is particularly timely in light of the EU referendum result. There is no doubt that the EU has helped us to address air quality. EU regulations such as the 2008 ambient air quality directive have been important tools for campaigners to hold the Government to account. Just this week, EU Environment Ministers approved a new directive on air pollution that revises targets for member states in line with the Gothenburg protocol. The directive is predicted to halve premature deaths in the EU due to air pollution by 2030, so the EU has a strong track record of action on this issue. Working closely with our EU partners will be critical in the coming years, which is why there is such concern that, following the referendum, we are now at a crossroads. The scale of the challenge is huge.

From speaking to people such as Manchester Friends of the Earth and the British Lung Foundation, I know there is a real fear that leaving the EU could see us return to being the dirty man of Europe, notwithstanding what was said earlier about the repeal Bill. I agree with the Labour environment campaign and ClientEarth that the prospect of leaving the EU reinforces the need for a new clean air Act to bring the EU and World Health Organisation guidelines into UK law to ensure that we do not lose those safeguards in the long term.

The report raises a couple of issues that relate to Manchester. First, I welcome recommendation 9, which calls on the Government to extend new powers and support to councils that are ready to address air quality. Restricting the provision of clean air zones to five cities outside London limits the scope for supporting urban centres such as Manchester to play our part in reducing air pollution.

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

We are not restricting it. The difference is that the Government are requiring it of those five cities. Any part of the country can introduce a clean air zone if it wishes.

[Jeff Smith]

What we do not get in Manchester is the support and resource to do it, as the other five cities do.

I was told in July 2016 that Greater Manchester was denied funding and support for a clean air zone because of predictions that the city region would not break the EU directive limit. However, it emerged during the recent High Court case that DEFRA originally included Greater Manchester in the list of clean air zones, only to be told by the Treasury that we cannot afford it. Also, DEFRA’s air quality projections for Manchester have been widely discredited because they are based on static car usage and no population growth—in fact, Greater Manchester’s population has grown at double the UK average over the past decade. Despite our fantastic progress on public transport, particularly our Metrolink, 58% of journeys within Greater Manchester are still made by car. Now that DEFRA is having to revisit its air quality strategy, I urge the Minister to think again and support Manchester in implementing a clean air zone.

Secondly, we all got it wrong on diesel vehicles, and the Government now need to take stronger and faster action. The direction of travel across the world is away from diesel cars and towards low-emission vehicles. As has been mentioned, just last week Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens joined Tokyo in moving to ban diesel vehicles from their city centres.

Recommendation 19 calls for a national diesel scrappage scheme, paired with grants for purchasing low-emission vehicles. Funding for new refuelling infrastructure for low-carbon vehicles is welcome, but it is clearly not enough on its own to get high-polluting diesel cars off the road. In Manchester we have taken promising steps to modernise our bus fleet and increase the number of charging locations for electric cars, but we need the Government to show more leadership. It is time for the Government to follow our international partners and take serious action. A scrappage scheme for diesel cars would demonstrate such action, so I repeat the calls made by other Members to reconsider that proposal.

I will not speak for long, but I return to the High Court case brought by the lawyers at ClientEarth. The case exposes the Government’s lack of ambition to address our air pollution crisis. The verdict shows that the Government are committed to scraping by but, following the EU referendum result, that approach will not be enough.

Recommendation 7 sums it up perfectly:

“the Government must accord poor air quality a priority commensurate with the toll on the nation’s health and environment.”

That is absolutely what we need now.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the Liaison Committee for granting this debate to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).

Improving air quality is my top priority and I welcome the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s interest in this matter. Such interest is not unique to the Select Committee. Air quality has improved significantly over recent decades, through the regulatory frameworks put in place by successive Governments, starting with the Clean Air Act 1956 and continuing as we signed up to the international protocols that have been continually revised, usually brought into place by EU regulations. We have supported them. The standards have got tougher and I am determined that we will improve air quality further.

We are showing leadership in driving improved air-quality standards internationally through the Gothenburg protocol. As a result, in common with the rest of Europe, we now have legally binding targets to reduce UK air pollutant emissions by 2020, and to reduce them even further by 2030. The targets will be incorporated into our legislation by the end of June 2018. I will set out further actions in due course, including publishing the UK Government’s air pollution action plan, which includes all pollutants, and we must do that by no later than March 2019.

The Government’s ambition is that ours will be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than we found it, which is why we are developing a 25-year environment plan that will include a strong focus on clean air. Our most immediate challenge, though, is to reduce the number of local pollutant hotspots caused by vehicle emissions. That is why the UK led the development of the real driving emissions test. From next year, vehicles will have to meet emissions limits in real driving conditions across a wide range of typical operating conditions. We have also committed more than £2 billion to increase the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and to support greener transport schemes. In addition, in the autumn statement we announced a further £290 million to support electric vehicles, low-emission buses and taxis, and alternative fuels. As has already been mentioned, earlier this year we set up the joint air quality unit with the Department for Transport. The unit is focusing on reducing local concentrations of air pollutants from vehicles.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), we are absolutely determined to maintain international leadership on the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles. I recognise the figures he cites for Japan, but we have certainly been the largest market in the European Union this year, and the Government are increasing their support. In answer to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee, the UK already has the largest rapid-charging network in Europe. Alongside the comprehensive package of measures from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, we intend to introduce in the modern transport Bill powers to regulate technical standards of infrastructure to ensure the easy compatibility of vehicles, and to require provision at motorway service areas and fuel retailers.

Following the outcome of the judicial review, the Government are developing a new and more ambitious national plan for reducing local concentrations of air pollutants. We are working at pace to update our modelling, in the light of the latest evidence, to inform our plan. Many options are being worked up for us to consider, including fiscal matters. We have established a cross-Whitehall approach, and I have personally arranged to meet Ministers from the Department of Health, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Department for Communities and Local Government. After those meetings and encouragement from DEFRA, the inter-ministerial group for clean growth was reconvened. We have started to meet monthly and are meeting again next month.

Officials from all the relevant Departments are working to consider what policies and funding will be needed to achieve our goals. Members should realise that the focus will be on carbon and air quality; I recognise that, as Members have said, carbon has been the focus in the past, without consideration of other matters. Meanwhile, DEFRA will continue to influence other strategies and policies as they develop. For example, we recently proposed a consultation on the impact of generators, which I suggest may have influenced a significant drop in the number of contracts being awarded for diesel generation in a recent capacity market. We will consult on the revised plan by 24 April, at which point I am sure the Select Committee will want to discuss matters further. The final plan will be in place by the end of July.

Clean air zones are a key element in our approach to reducing local concentrations of air pollutants, and local authorities already have the power to introduce them. I am pleased to say that Manchester is already considering introducing such a zone, without the Government having mandated it to do so. To support local authorities in creating them, and to ensure a degree of national consistency, we have published a draft framework for clean air zones. The consultation on the framework recently closed, and we received more than 200 responses, which we are now considering.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) said that we would end up with a one-size-fits-all category D model, but that is not the case. Clean air zone standards will be varied by need: some will be category B, some category C and some category D. We will be requiring five cities—Birmingham, Derby, Leeds, Nottingham and Southampton—to implement clean air zones, and as part of our updates to the national plan we will look at whether we need to mandate more zones. As I said to the Select Committee, our indicative modelling suggests that that will be the case, but I need to discuss matters with the relevant local authorities before announcing anything to the House.

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned some other elements. Birmingham City Council is trialling the conversion of diesel to liquefied petroleum gas with taxis, but I am led to believe that it does not work technically for most cars. I know that costings have been done in the past for income-based scrappage, or a scrappage scheme more generally, but the Transport for London proposal about which my hon. Friend heard would not really work because it was talking about the exchange being for an Oyster card.

Alongside national Government action, I am encouraging local councils to do all they can to use existing powers to improve air quality and deliver real change, tailored to their local communities. Local authorities have opportunities to think about local land use and their decisions on planning, roads and, indeed, the local air quality management areas they themselves declare.

[Rachael Maskell]

Alongside giving that opportunity to local authorities, what resourcing is the Minister providing for them to take that work forward?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will be aware that elements of funding are available as part of the air quality grant programme. The sum has increased at least sixfold since the previous grant last year. If we have good enough bids, we hope to work with the Treasury to consider how we can develop that funding further.

I recently sent letters to 230 local authorities with air quality management areas, seeking updates on their plans, and on their plans to move to compliance. From the number and quality of responses that I have already received, I have been pleased to note that positive action is being taken in many places. Mid Devon District Council has taken a lead role in the region’s low emissions partnership; Rushcliffe Borough Council is taking forward a number of transport and educational initiatives, while also reducing the council’s own impacts; and Norwich City Council has recorded a significant reduction in nitrogen dioxide after improving traffic flow and introducing a new fleet of Euro 6 buses. The Public Health Minister and I have written jointly to all directors of public health to encourage them to show their influence on air quality at a local level. The Mayor of Bristol replied to my letter and I am pleased to say I will meet him next month, alongside MPs from Bristol.

There are other matters to consider, such as reducing emissions of particulate matter, which is also an important priority for me. The largest source of those emissions now is domestic solid fuel, such as wood and coal burned in open fires and stoves, the use of which has increased significantly in recent years. I am considering a range of options to address this issue, and as a first step I plan to engage with stove manufacturers and retailers to understand the issues and identify where improvements could be made, through industry-led action on cleaner appliances and fuel. In particular, one of the messages that I would like to give out before the Christmas holidays is for people to think about the choice of wood that they use when they have open fires, and to use wood with the lowest moisture possible, to reduce the production of soot and dust.

With regard to farming, our target is to reduce ammonia emissions, which have already decreased significantly over many years. However, we know there is more to do. As a first step, DEFRA recently launched a farming ammonia reduction grant, to encourage the agriculture sector to help drive reductions in ammonia emissions.

I note the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton raised on the use of fertiliser and grass feeds. DEFRA is also looking at greenhouse gas emissions, working with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to drive forward efficiency gains in the beef sector via the beef genetic improvement network.

My hon. Friend also referred to construction, with regard to non-road mobile machinery. We have worked closely with the European Union and the legislation on that area was published in September 2016.

I recognise that the decision made by Greenwich Council was unpopular with the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). According to the Mayor of Greenwich’s website, the decision was considered for call-in by the Mayor but he decided not to. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton will be aware that our right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, has committed to look further at what can be done on shipping emissions, which I am sure is good news for air quality, not only on the Thames but around the country.

My approach on this issue is not to play the blame game or pass the buck. As was pointed out, a previous Government incentivised diesel vehicles, to cut carbon. I could casually blame them, but I just do not see the point of doing so. I do not blame local councils for this matter, but alongside our national strategy we need to take local action. As I have said before, improving air quality is my top priority and a top priority for DEFRA. We are committed to improving air quality across all levels of Government, to deliver the improvements that are needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has pointed out, co-ordinated action is absolutely needed, and I can assure him that that work is under way.

In that work, we have the backing of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who just last month said to the House:

“We have taken action, but there is more to do and we will do it.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2016; Vol. 616, c. 887.]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee to wind up.

EU Environment Council

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Written Statements

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

I will attend the EU Environment Council, which will take place on 19 December in Brussels alongside the Minister for Climate Change and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd).

Following adoption of the agenda, the list of “A” items will be approved.

Under legislative proposals, the Council will debate a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending directive 2003/87/EC (the “EU ETS directive”) to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments.

Under non-legislative proposals, the Council will seek to adopt conclusions on the protection of human health and the environment through the sound management of chemicals.

The following items will be discussed under any other business:

a) Current legislative proposals:

i) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by member states from 2021 to 2030 for a resilient energy union and to meet commitments under the Paris agreement and amending regulation No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and other information relevant to climate change (the “effort share regulation”).

ii) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry into the 2030 climate and energy framework and amending regulation No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and other information relevant to climate change (the “land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) regulation”).

b) Current legislative proposals:

i) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment.

ii) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

iii) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending directive 2008/98/EC on waste.

iv) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.

c) Communication from the Commission on next steps for a sustainable European future: European action for sustainability.

d) Communication from the Commission on clean energy for all Europeans.

e) Fitness check of the EU nature legislation (birds and habitats directives).

f) Reports on recent international meetings:

i) United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) (Marrakech, 7 to 18 November 2016).

ii) Convention on biological diversity (CBD) (Cancun, 4 to 17 December 2016).

iii) 66th session of the International Whaling Commission (Portoroz, Slovenia, 20 to 28 October 2016).

iv) Ninth meeting of the conference of the parties (COP 9) to the UNECE convention on transboundary effects of industrial accidents (Ljubljana, 28 to 30 November 2016).

g) REFIT evaluation of the EU ecolabel.

h) European sustainable development week (ESDW) (30 May to 5 June 2017).

i) Odour nuisance.

j) Budapest Water summit 2016 (Budapest, 28 to 30 November 2016).

k) Work programme of the incoming presidency.

On 23 June, 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.

[HCWS359]