Leaving the EU: Live Farm Animal Exports

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

There are genuine concerns. A lot of documented and anecdotal evidence suggests that the existing EU regulations are not always adhered to, and that animals sometimes suffer unnecessarily in transit, despite the current regulatory framework.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Surely it is not just about the conditions—grim though they may be—in which animals are transported; it is also that the conditions at their destination are likely to be of a lower standard than we would expect in this country. Our animal welfare standards are generally higher, and given all the noises coming from the Government over the last few months, they are likely to rise, not fall, which will make the issue even more critical. It is not just about the transport, but about the conditions that animals live in.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The petition calls for a ban on the export of live animals, but wider animal welfare considerations are also relevant. We have very high standards, and many of us want them improved once we leave the European Union. We should expect those higher standards to be adhered to, because we should be setting an example in this country. That is what many of us want.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that he understands the desire to look into the issue as we leave the European Union, and that he is committed to restricting this trade. The Government are preparing proposals on live exports for consultation, and are looking very seriously at a ban in the near future. Even within the current restrictions, we have seen some progress, as the records show: as recently as 2000, more than 750,000 live animals were exported for slaughter or fattening, but by 2016 that figure had fallen to 43,000. The direction of travel is already changing, but many of us agree that we want the trade to end altogether.

Tougher regulations and public awareness have led to a switch to exporting carcases rather than live animals. However, there is still a busy trade in live animals between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and I see no reason why that should not continue, post Brexit. Dairy cattle are routinely sent to the Republic, and the milk they produce is sent back to Northern Ireland. Calves cross the border for fattening, too. Concerns have been raised that to circumvent a ban, a trade might develop whereby live exports are shipped to Northern Ireland, then sent on to the Republic, and then sent on from there. Apart from that being hugely expensive, and thus unlikely, there is already legislation on onward journey times, conditions and the need for approved and posted journey plans. Limiting journey times further might address the issue and prevent any chicanery aimed at circumventing a future ban. There are clearly far wider issues and decisions to be agreed on with regard to the Irish border, but I certainly do not intend to get into them today. With regard to animal movements, I believe we should leave Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to continue as they are, without fear of creating loopholes, post Brexit.

I have taken into account and looked carefully at a range of proposals and concerns from several groups, including the National Farmers Union. There are concerns about tariffs being imposed on carcases, post Brexit. I accept that point of view, but we have yet to see how such matters will be settled, and furthermore there will be new and bigger markets for us to pursue, post Brexit. British food has worldwide acclamation. We can and will do better with our food exports, post Brexit. The outcome of the tariff issue is still unknown, but it cannot be a deal breaker when we take our decision on the animal welfare standards that are to apply. It could be argued that tariffs might apply to live exports as opposed to carcase trade, but I see no value in speculating on that. There is no substitute for doing the right thing, on either animal welfare or leaving the EU. There might be choppy waters ahead, but I would rather face that interim phase than be hamstrung forever by the regulations that we are currently subject to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am talking about 2012, which is far more recent than that, and as I said the Government went along to the negotiations and were not prepared to take the side of those who were arguing for an eight- hour limit.

It is important that the Government are held to account on what I see as a promise to end the practice of live animal exports that was made during the referendum campaign. That is because—as the petition rightly states, although I do not think we have heard quite enough about it this afternoon—the transport of live animals, no matter what the end result is, whether they are going for slaughter or for fattening up overseas, causes a huge amount of unnecessary suffering.

It is important not to forget the tragedy that jump-started the long-running campaign for a ban, which happened many years ago. In 1996 nearly 70,000 sheep were left to die either from heatstroke, suffocation, burning or drowning, after the ship that was carrying them caught fire in the middle of the Indian ocean. Although, thankfully, an incident on that scale has not happened again, countless animals continue to endure gruelling journeys every year.

In 2012, 40 sheep had to be euthanised after being crammed into a truck, and just last August it was reported that 500 sheep spent four days without any access to food or water while they were being transported to Turkey. Also, many people here will have seen today’s story in The Times about how every year more than 5,000 calves—unweaned and discarded by the dairy industry—are sent on journeys of more than 135 hours from Scotland to Spain. That number had doubled from the previous year; I think the 5,000 figure is from 2016.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech and I just want to add one more point. I believe that in the past two years 20,000 calves have been sent to Spain. In Spain there is a requirement that a calf should be given bedding for only the first two weeks of its life and not beyond that, whereas a British calf has the right—if I can put it that way—to have bedding for six months. So the standards in Spain are dramatically lower than those in the UK, which is another reason why this issue is about not only whether an animal is going to be slaughtered, but the conditions in which it is living when it reaches its destination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but if he reads the petition, he will see that it states:

“The transport of live animals exported from the UK causes immense suffering.”

So he is wrong. It is not about whether we kill the animals near to where they are born. We all agree on that: of course we should slaughter and export on the hook. If we cannot, or if something else is going on, such as fattening, we have to be careful, because large numbers of animals will be put in lorries for breeding purposes and they will arrive in France and be slaughtered, and there is nothing we can do. So we ought to correct where the suffering occurs and not try to blame foreign people for standards that they may or may not be more passionate about than some of our people.

It is much more important that the Government focus on removing any suffering on the journeys that we can control.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Does my hon. Friend think it is possible to transport in a civilised manner very young calves from the Scottish isles to Spain, for example? Obviously anything is possible in a world of fantasy, but in the real world does he believe that is a possibility?

[Bill Wiggin]

At the moment we have got the worst possible case where the roll-on/roll-off ferries will not take live exports because of the protests, so the animals end up going on slower ferries. Can we export and travel safely? Yes, we can. We fly racehorses around the world to appear in horseraces. We do all sorts of things with animals, but the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act was to name the five freedoms so that we would have basic frameworks for animal welfare, and breaking those is against the law. It is vital that we enforce the laws that we all like and support, rather than allow exporters an excuse. So can we transport calves abroad? Yes, we can.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Surely if one were even to come close to applying the standards applied to racehorses, or to extremely valuable breeding stock, to animals that are transported for slaughter or fattening, the whole economic dynamic would change to such an extent that it would never make sense to transport animals on a large scale for those purposes? The standards for animals transported for slaughter or fattening will always necessarily be far lower than those in the example that he provided.

[Bill Wiggin]

It is far better to achieve a ban by making it economically difficult because the standards are so high than to apply a legal ban, which people get around by sending their animals to Northern Ireland, southern Ireland and to Spain. Let us get what we really want, which is a reduction in cruelty, rather than an export ban.

Animal Welfare

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government policy on animal welfare.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. It is often said that we are a nation of animal lovers and in many respects we are a world leader in animal welfare. That is something we can be proud of.

In the months since the general election we have seen a blizzard of activity from the Government that will build on that proud record. They have committed to putting CCTV into all abattoirs to prevent abuse; they have committed to increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; they have committed to closing down the ivory trade in the UK, to remove loopholes allowing new ivory to be sold as if it is old ivory; they are banning neonicotinoids, pesticides that are wiping out bees and many other pollinators; they are bringing in measures to tackle plastic waste that is clogging up our oceans, as we have all seen on the extraordinary “Blue Planet” series; and they are banning microbeads, those tiny particles of plastic that are causing mayhem to marine life.

On a bigger scale, we have seen over the past few years the creation of a network of giant marine protected areas. Our 14 overseas territories represent the fifth-largest marine estate in the world and include some of the most important biodiversity hotspots in the world. This Government have committed nearly 4 million square kilometres to protection by 2020—an area way bigger than India. That represents the single biggest conservation measure by any Government ever.

Despite that, there remains much to be done if we want to bring our animal welfare and environmental policy laws up to date, as we should. In this debate, I want to centre on animal welfare. It is timely that the Government have announced today that they will bring forward a new animal welfare Bill to deliver some of the commitments that have already been made.

As hon. Members know, we are putting EU environment and animal welfare laws into UK law, but there has been some controversy over one issue in particular: animal sentience.

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

Does my hon. Friend share my sense that there are some who have been mischievous and misleading on that subject, because they refuse to believe that the Government take animal welfare seriously and are legislating more than any previous Government have done?

[Zac Goldsmith]

My right hon. Friend makes the point well and I agree with him. It was reported two weeks ago, as hon. Members will remember, that MPs had voted as if they felt that animals do not have feelings. That story took on a life of its own. It became a forest fire on social media. In fact, it became the top political story of the year. I have to say, notwithstanding what he has just said, it is a wonderful reflection on the British people that they made it the top story of the year, but it was, as he has said, fake news.

There has never been any disputing the fact that animals have feelings or that animal sentience needed to be enshrined in UK law. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made clear at that time that he intended to find the best legislative vehicle for translating sentience into law, and today, as expected and as promised, he has, in a new animal welfare Bill. Also as expected and as promised, the new rules will go further, because our sentience principle will apply to all policy decisions and relate to all animals. It will not be narrowly restricted to those policy areas under EU control, as it is today. That point was made earlier today by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this important cause. As a farmer’s son, I know all too well the importance of protecting animal welfare. Does he agree that Brexit gives us an opportunity to strengthen our animal welfare rules and laws, so that we are putting animal welfare at the heart of our programme going forward?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and I will be making that point in more detail shortly.

The new Bill that was announced at midnight last night will also increase the maximum jail terms for animal abusers from six months to five years. Both of those commitments are enormously welcome. It is great news and I can hardly exaggerate my thanks to the Secretary of State for the breathtaking leadership he has shown since being appointed to his role, but I believe it would be a mistake not to use the opportunity of a new animal welfare Bill to create something truly comprehensive, so I want to make the case for some key areas that I believe should be included and I want to start with farming.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that preventing people who abuse animals from owning animals is a very good thing to include in the Bill?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and I thank him for making that point.

The Secretary of State has said:

“As we leave the European Union there are opportunities for us to go further and to improve… animal welfare”.

Of course, he is right. For example—this goes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) was making—as we leave the EU, we will be able to end the live export of animals for slaughter and fattening, which is a grim process for tens of thousands of animals every year. Last year, 3,000 calves were transported from Scotland via Ireland to Spain and over 45,000 sheep were taken from the UK through continental Europe. Under EU single market rules, the UK has not been able to stop that—we have tried, but we have not succeeded. I am thrilled that Ministers have indicated that they are minded to act as soon as we are allowed. If we do, we will be the first European country to do so and will be setting what I hope will become a trend.

Procurement is another area where we can make a relatively easy and significant impact. The Government spend around £2 billion a year on food for schools, hospitals, prisons and military barracks. Currently, that food is required to meet only a very basic standard of animal welfare—basic standards that still leave chickens in tiny cages, pigs in cramped and stressful conditions, cows in sheds all year long and so on.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The five-year sentencing for animal cruelty is excellent. We need to procure food that is of a very high standard and British. We also need to ensure that, as we do our Brexit deals in future, we do not allow in food with much lower welfare standards, so that our farmers who have high-quality and high-welfare standards also have a real chance to maintain a competitive edge.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I am reassured by a number of statements that have been made by the Secretary of State in relation to that. Putting sentience into UK law across the entire range of Government policies will also help us ensure that we do not lower our standards in return for trade deals.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is very welcome that the Secretary of State has made clear that our sentience law will be much stronger than both French and EU law, which declares animal sentience, but then allows disgraceful practices such as cock fighting and bull fighting?

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is a very good point. The sentience principle in EU law has been held up by some as a gold standard, but it is a gold standard that has allowed foie gras, veal production, fur farming, in some cases donkey torture, bull fighting and much more besides. It is not a gold standard. We are setting a gold standard. We are going to go so much further, which we should be proud of.

Returning to procurement, we have £2 billion at our disposal, which we currently spend each year on food of a pretty low standard. In my view, that is a wasted opportunity. There are hundreds of schools and hospitals in this country already, including in my own constituency, that are choosing to use their buying power to support suppliers who guarantee higher standards. The Government need to take that best practice and make it into the norm.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

My hon. Friend is making some extremely good points. Does he agree that one thing that has hitherto prevented our schools and particularly our armed forces from buying British products is EU procurement legislation? When we leave the EU, we will not have to do that, so we will be able to sell our own British-made products to British institutions.

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is exactly right. That has been a barrier all the way along from the Government’s point of view. However, they can now begin to take that best practice and make it the norm. I would like to see them commit to using their vast buying power to boost the most sustainable and highest animal welfare standards. When I first raised this point in Parliament as a new MP seven years or so ago, I was told all the time by Ministers: “You cannot do it. It will be too expensive. It is a luxury.” I helped to set up a group called School Food Matters, originally in Richmond, to try it out in my own area. We persuaded Richmond Council and then Kingston Council to rewrite their contracts. Today, every single primary school in Richmond serves Food for Life gold standard food—the very best people can get. They prepare all their food in house and take-up by parents has trebled, and we are doing nearly as well in Kingston, where it started slightly later. Here is the thing: the cost per meal went down by 38p—it did not go up; it went down. In my view, that removes the only argument against pursuing this policy.

There is no reason not to use that simple but powerful lever to support the highest standards, but the Government can do more than that: they can raise the standards as well. There are two important ways in which the Government should do so. The first, simply, is to update the rules around cages. Millions of animals are currently trapped in appalling conditions on our farms. Pregnant sows are stuffed, unable to move, into farrowing crates, typically from a week before giving birth until the piglets are weaned. Those have been banned in Sweden and Norway, and we should do the same. Chickens are no luckier. We banned battery cages in 2012, but the so-called enriched cages that replaced them are more or less the same. They are hideously restrictive, and there is virtually no additional room at all. The life of a factory chicken just does not bear thinking about. Luxembourg and Germany have banned the cages, so why cannot we?

The second way in which we can easily raise standards is by tackling the overuse and abuse of antibiotics on farms. This is an animal welfare issue because antibiotics have been used in farming to keep animals alive in conditions where they would otherwise die, but it is also a major human health issue. The abuse of antibiotics has allowed the growth of resistant bacteria, which can spread to the human population and reduce medicines’ effectiveness in treating our own infections. The brilliant chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies has warned:

“If we don’t take action, deaths will go up and up and modern medicine as we know it will be lost.”

It is worth thinking about that pretty profound statement from the chief medical officer. She has talked about a “catastrophic threat”: the risk of millions of people dying each year from common infections.

The good news is that, after a lot of campaigning, the issue has risen up the political agenda and the Government have taken action. Sales of antibiotics to treat animals in the UK fell by 27% from 2014 to 2016. That is clearly good news, but the threat remains acute and the Government need to get a stronger grip. There should be absolutely no mass medication of animals simply to prevent illness. It should be outlawed. There should be no use of antibiotics, such as Colistin, that are classified as critically important to human health. They should have no place on a farm. If we stop this madness, we stand a chance of preventing a human health disaster and, as it happens, we will also force a kinder, more civilised form of farming.

Finally, on agriculture, an issue that merits, and has indeed had, many debates all of its own is the badger cull. The Government have always said that their policy of culling badgers to stop the spread of bovine TB is based on science, but that position is becoming harder to justify. The only full Government study into bovine TB transmission between cattle and badgers, which ran from 1998 to 2006, concluded that

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

More recently, the independent expert panel appointed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advise on the current pilot cull stated that it was ineffective and inhumane. Nobody doubts the importance of dealing with TB or the devastating impact that it can have on livelihoods—

[Neil Parish]

I could not disagree with my hon. Friend more on this particular point. If there is a pool of the disease bovine TB within badgers, and someone tests their herds of cattle, ensures they are clean and then puts them out in fields where there are badgers carrying bovine TB, the badgers will then re-infect the cattle. We have to deal with both. I am sorry, but on this occasion I could not disagree with him more.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Well, we normally agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do not believe that there is anything like enough evidence to justify culling tens of thousands of native wild animals, the vast majority of which are disease-free. This year is likely to see a trebling in the number of badgers culled, and yet in Wales, where no general culls are taking place, TB has halved. In the absence of robust science, the very least the Government should—

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the decline in bovine TB in Wales is no more distinct in the areas where vaccination takes place than it is in areas where vaccination does not take place? Indeed, the Welsh Government are now considering whether they need to bring in a limited cull because the existing methods are not working. I hope he takes that into account.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am going to move on, but the chief veterinary officer in Wales takes a different view.

[Neil Parish]

She is in favour of culling.

[Zac Goldsmith]

She wants selective, as opposed to general, preventive culls, and that is different to our approach here in England.

[Neil Parish]

Ours is selective.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Our approach is not selective. There are huge numbers of animals involved, The approach in England is a preventive cull, as opposed to a selective cull. My view is that at the very least the Government should suspend the cull and commission a proper study into the alternatives, so that we can be sure that the policy we adopt is based on science, and not assumption.

I shall hold off on taking interventions for a few moments, as in the time I have remaining I want to briefly look at how we treat exotic wild animals. In so many areas we are world leaders, but in others we lag behind. For example, at least 23 countries worldwide have banned the use of wild animals in circuses; but despite British Government promises going back five years, it is still legal to use lions, tigers, zebras and other wild animals in travelling circuses in the UK. It is time for Ministers to make good on a promise that has been made and repeated over the past five years.

The keeping of monkeys as pets is a similar issue. Primates are highly intelligent wild animals; they are not suitable pets. Like us, they enjoy complex social lives and form deep and lasting relationships, but despite that thousands upon thousands of squirrel monkeys, capuchins and marmosets languish alone in cages across the country. Because they become very tricky as they grow old, they are often simply abandoned and then have to be picked up by wonderful, but overstretched, organisations such as Monkey World in Dorset. The emotional and physical damage that they endure takes years and years to undo. Fifteen European countries have banned the trade, and more than 100,000 British people signed a petition demanding that we do the same. Again, we need to get a grip on this issue.

It is not just individual private ownership that needs looking at. There are 250 licensed zoos in the UK. Some, such as Howletts in Kent, really do represent the gold standard. The welfare of the animals is their principal concern, and the conservation of the species that they harbour is at the forefront of their campaign. They release animals back into the wild in a way that no other zoo in the country does. However, recent incidents, such as the exposé of the grotesque conditions at South Lakes Safari Zoo, show that there is a gulf between best and worst practice, and a need for better standards and a more rigorous inspection process. I believe that we need to establish a new, independent zoo inspectorate and give it the job of drawing up fresh standards for animal welfare in UK zoos and then enforcing them.

I want to join in the applause that the Government rightly earned last month when the Secretary of State announced that we would ban the trade in ivory here in the UK. Globally, the trade takes the lives of 20,000 elephants a year—one every 26 minutes—and they are hurtling towards extinction. We in this country—I do not think that many people are aware of this—are the largest exporter of legal ivory in the world, stimulating demand for ivory and giving the traffickers a means to launder new ivory as if it were old.

The Government’s promise is not merely symbolic—it is much more than that—but I hope they will go further. Evidence is mounting of an increase in the trade in hippo ivory. There are only 100,000 or so hippos in the world, so the slightest shift in demand could be devastating for that species. I hope that the Government will expand their consultation, or the policy when it eventually emerges, to include other ivory-bearing species such as hippos, the walrus and the narwhal.

Finally on the international dimension, hon. Members will remember the outrage that followed the killing of Cecil the lion in 2015 and, too, the announcement a few weeks ago that the United States President was thinking of reversing the decision of his predecessor to ban the import of elephant and lion parts from trophy hunting. At the time it went largely unreported that this country also allows the import of wild animal trophies, including from species threatened with extinction. We need to change that. It should simply be illegal to import body parts of any animal listed as endangered by the convention on international trade in endangered species

The last point that I want to make moves into a different field. It relates not to farmed or exotic animals, or to our role overseas; it relates to puppies.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. He is a great advocate for animal welfare. Will he join me in supporting Lucy’s law, which was launched in Parliament last week and looks for a ban on third-party puppy sales? Basically, it would ensure that the scourge of puppy farming no longer exists in this country. Also, will he support the early-day motion on Lucy’s law launched today?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention, and I could not agree with her more strongly. I pay tribute to Marc Abraham who led the campaign for Lucy’s law. It is probably inappropriate to mention that I can see him in the Public Gallery, but he has been an absolute champion for the cause. I believe that we will see some results in the next few months and will perhaps hear from the Minister on that shortly.

I will cut my speech down, because I have taken far too many interventions and am running out of time. I have provided a long but not exhaustive list of measures that I think we should take. It is an important list, however, and taking those measures is the right thing to do and would put the Government on the right side of public opinion. If there is any doubt about that, we need only to look at the public reaction to the albeit false stories about MPs believing that animals do not have feelings, or at the reaction from voters to the 2017 Conservative manifesto proposal on holding a vote to abolish the Hunting Act 2004—something that I hope the Government will now rule out.

I want to give the Minister enough time to respond. I know she will be unable to respond to every point I have made, but I hope that she will do her best in the 10 minutes we have left.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Only last week we announced that we would be simplifying countryside stewardship and having four principal routes that farmers can take. I look forward to working with her to ensure that the farmers she represents have access to this money, which will ensure that her beautiful constituency receives the cash it needs for further environmental enhancement.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

There was huge applause for the Government’s decision to ban the UK ivory trade, but there is now growing evidence of an increase in the trade in hippo ivory. With only 100,000 or so African hippos left, the slightest increase in demand could spell disaster for that species. May I urge Ministers to extend the proposed ban to include other ivory-bearing species such as hippo, narwhal, walrus and the like?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The scope of our proposed legislation is so far restricted to African and Asian elephants, but the consultation is still open, so I will take what he says as a submission. We are very keen to see what we can do to protect all endangered species and their habitats, and this may be one way of achieving that.

Marine Environment

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to bring up the issue of fishing. With your permission, Mr Owen, I will come back to fishing a little later, including that specific point. Of course there are better ways and worse ways of fishing. When we have Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, if anyone mentions bottom-scraping, everyone giggles, but the fact is that there are ships that do scrape the bottom of the ocean, taking everything. That is a savage and unacceptable form of fishing.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I am really enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s brilliant speech so far. One of the problems is that it is very hard for consumers to know whether or not the fish they buy is sustainable or not. The one thing that we can rely on, or think we can rely on, is the label provided by the Marine Stewardship Council. However, new research by the On the Hook campaign shows that the MSC has been awarding certification to fleets that on one day use sustainable tackle but the next day use completely rapacious and unsustainable tackle; it is certifying some of the worst operators in the world. Given the MSC’s near-monopoly status in the world, in terms of providing that certification or assurance, does he agree that the Government should be encouraged to work closely with the MSC to ensure that it raises rather than continues to weaken the science, at the cost of our world’s oceans?

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I agree with every word he says. I will also put that issue on the backburner for a moment, because I want to talk about how we move forward. Anyone who saw the last David Attenborough film knows that it offered one little chink of light. Viewers get to the stage where they are feeling quite suicidal about the future of the marine environment, and then suddenly David Attenborough mentions that, actually, there is some possibility of the oceans renewing themselves in some areas, although not as well as we might hope.

Let me talk about the purpose of this debate. There has been a slow awakening to the peril the marine environment is in, but now is the time that we must act. David Attenborough says that we have 50 years to save ourselves, but I think that he is being generous. I think that we have to act much more quickly and decisively, and have the right kind of organisations. I am afraid that the only political things that I will be saying today are about what I believe to be the real strengths of the European Union over a number of years in helping us to co-operate across nations to tackle some of the great problems of the environment.

I remember meeting Surfers Against Sewage in my early days in the House. Mr Owen, you will remember what the seas around Swansea were like a few years ago. They were full of sewage—dreadful conditions. So many of our coastal towns used to pump sewage, in a pipe, out into the sea and, of course, back it would come. There has been a remarkable change because of European regulation on discharge to the sea. We rapidly cleaned up our seas and beaches, and also those right across Europe, so that when holidaying there we would know how clean the environment was; there is a standard and a system of flags.

I also remember the tiny amount of recycling that was done in our country in my early days in the House. Local authorities were at 14% recycling. The rates across the country have since zoomed up. Why? Because we took on board European regulations that meant the payment of a levy on any waste that was put in a hole in the ground. What a society we used to be, not long ago, putting all our waste product in holes in the ground. It is still there—a great treachery, a misspent youth. For 150 years, going back to the Victorians, we threw everything we had finished with into holes in the ground. That was a disgrace, and it was only European regulation and landfill tax that turned it around. We now have a much better—but not perfect—situation. Funnily enough, only recently I asked how much each local authority in Britain pays in landfill tax. I have not yet had a reply; the Government are very reluctant to give me the information, saying, “It is so difficult to collect. Inland Revenue cannot provide it”. It is, however, a very good indicator of how effective the authorities are in their recycling.

UK Bee Population

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for securing this important debate. He is the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for bees, which I am very proud to chair. We came together to set the group up because one of the surprises on being new entrants here in 2015 was that we received more correspondence from constituents on bees and pollinators than perhaps any other political issue. It is fair to say that Brexit has now somewhat overtaken that, but that struck a chord. This is an incredibly important issue for our constituents and people across the country, and it is one that Parliament could do more on.

Politicians can talk a good game, but I have walked around this estate with ecologists from Kew, and a cursory glance shows that Parliament is an appalling place for bees and pollinators to thrive and survive in. One of our aims is to host a colony of bees on site and to try to turn some of this bare concrete barren land into a more natural habitat for bees. We would then not only talk a good game about the importance of bees and pollinators but demonstrate to our constituents when they visit that this is a place where pollinators can thrive.

That is particularly important, because we have seen in the last 20 years a 54% decline in the honey bee population. We should look beyond honey bees and, indeed, bees. We have also seen since the 1960s a 62% decline in the moth population. We know that pollinators are more prevalent on the non-bee side than the bee side. Without wishing to widen the debate too far, we should look at pollinators as a whole, not just bees and honey bees.

I am particularly grateful that the Government have listened to the science when it comes to neonicotinoids. The APPG for bees had taken quite a nuanced position, similar to the British Beekeepers Association. I think many people are excited by the advent of neonicotinoids, which mean that rather than having to spray seven times a year during the season when pollinators are most active, there is the opportunity to coat a seed. However, the science has been out; it seems to suggest that neonicotinoids have an impact on the productive system and nerve cells of bees as well as the flea beetle larvae that they were brought in to repel. The issue was that the lab-based studies were not particularly conclusive with regard to absolutely ensuring they reflected what was going on in the field.

Things changed over the summer. The two scientific studies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham referred—one from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology focusing on the UK, Germany and Hungary, and the other a Canadian study—demonstrated that there were issues with respect to survival over winter and reproduction of bees. Again, we must look at the science. It was incredibly interesting that the UK colonies were largely being wiped out, but in Germany, there was no impact at all.

We should be very careful not to be complacent with this welcome change. I agree with the Government; the science now shows that neonicotinoids do have an impact, and there should therefore be further controls. I welcome the controls being brought in by the Government. However, in Germany, the habitat is much richer than in the UK. This is where I suggest we focus our next set of impactful tasks. Modern farming, the varroa mite, the wax moth, global warming, food fashions, habitat loss—particularly with regard to hedgerows—and the rush of beekeepers, for which I blame myself, mean that we have a much wider expanse of areas we need to look at. I welcome the Government’s change of approach—indeed, the APPG will be changing its approach, because we also agree with the latest science—but I ask them not to consider this as job done.

I gave statistics from the ’60s and from 20 years ago, but that was before neonicotinoids were brought in. The population of bees and pollinators has been declining because of not just neonicotinoids but the other issues I brought forth. I would like to see the Government focus more on those areas.

I maintain that farming in particular has grown more towards embracing the environment, and incentives for farmers in terms of production are based on that.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for securing the debate. I too have had more emails about this subject than anything, bar Heathrow and Brexit.

In the light of the comments my hon. Friend just made about the changing nature of agriculture in our country, does he share my concern about the behaviour of the National Farmers Union? It continues to trash the science in relation to the decline in pollinators, which has become incredibly clear, and also to scaremonger about the impacts of this ban in terms of yields, despite the fact that farmers have seen record yields over the last three years, when the ban has been in place across Europe. Does he share my concern that the NFU, which exists to speak for farmers, seems more inclined nowadays to speak for vested interests—for the pesticide firms and for agribusiness—and not for the farmers that it exists to defend?

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend makes a key point. I would perhaps use the APPG’s position change to advocate that the NFU comes with us.

Friends of the Earth was most annoyed, quite frankly, that the APPG was not tending absolutely to the view that neonicotinoids are bad and should be banned conclusively. Our view was that we should wait for field-based research to conclusively show that that is the case. I believe that such field-based research has now come through with these two studies, and therefore it behoves the NFU to take the same approach. As has been pointed out, the farming industry is worth £100 billion. Farmers should embrace the need to protect pollinators, because they effectively are the start of production. It is time the NFU came with us.

It is also right that we continue to follow science and see if there is any scientific evolution with regard to neonics to fix the bad impacts that currently exist. We should never close the door to that, but it behoves the NFU to get behind the latest viewpoint and move forward. That would delight Friends of the Earth.

I should also say, in the 20 seconds remaining, that I am the champion for one of the solitary bees that is alive and well in Gatwick. I am not sure that that will further the cause of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park in terms of which airport should be expanded, but I am sure that bee will continue to survive in Gatwick.

I welcome the Government’s change of approach, and the APPG is very much with the Government’s change of direction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

13. The most recent scientific evidence again shows the link between a decline in our pollinators and the use of neonicotinoids. My right hon. Friend has secured so many successes in the last few months, including on ivory, plastics, CCTV in slaughterhouses and mandatory sentencing for cruelty. Will he now ensure that the science that we know is correct is implemented and we introduce a permanent ban on the main three neonicotinoids on the market today?

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning on this issue. It is vital that we do all we can to ensure that our insect population, and in particular our pollinator population, is protected. They are vital to the health of our environment. We are looking closely at the science in this matter.

Animals in Peril

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

That was an extraordinarily powerful and deeply troubling speech, and I agree with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke, but I want to add a little bit of good news and I am going to use the 30 or 40 seconds I have available to do so.

This very morning, four gorillas born and bred in Kent landed in the Congo, where they are due to be released by the Aspinall Foundation and will live the rest of their lives free. There are now 60 gorillas that have been released by that organisation, and those gorillas have bred 30 babies, which means that there are 90 gorillas that would not be there were it not for the work of that organisation. It is the only organisation in the world even attempting to rehabilitate—to reintroduce—gorillas, and we are talking not just about gorillas, but about 10 black rhino, 100 primates, 15 European bison, hyenas and much more besides. All I would say is that in a bleak and depressing landscape it is important that we celebrate heroes, and Damian Aspinall, Amos Courage and the team that work with them are heroes, and they need to be celebrated for the work they do.

EU Referendum: Energy and Environment

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

No, I will not.

The fact is that fish and birds and insects do not carry passports; pollution is oblivious to the strictures of national airspace or inshore waters. If we wish to manage all of these, whether as pests, problems or resources, then it is better to do so in concert with our regional neighbours. The vote to leave the EU has made that harder. The Government must outline how they propose to overcome that problem.

The Environment Secretary told the House last week that the subject of continued subsidies to farmers up to 2020

“is not a decision I can make at this stage.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 1028.]

Surely it is a decision that should have been made long before anyone asked farmers to vote to leave the EU. Much of the subsidy that farmers receive is for environmental stewardship schemes and other land management practices that benefit biodiversity and wildlife. To turn round to farmers now and say that the £3.5 billion total of subsidy that used to flow each year from the EU into their pockets is no longer secure is not just an attack on farmers’ livelihoods; it is an attack on all the work that farmers do to enhance our environment and protect our landscapes.

These are not abstract challenges. Managing the risks born of the uncertainty from the referendum outcome is a responsibility for Government. Ministers must urgently identify any legislative gaps in environmental protection that may arise from the removal of EU law, and develop plans to replace any protections so that the UK does not become a riskier, unhealthier or more polluted place to live in or do business in.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the CAP, but he would be hard-pressed to find any conservation or environment group in the country that believes it provides a net benefit to the environment. There are bits that are good for the environment, but overall I do not think anyone would defend it as a net good for the environment. Surely Brexit gives us an opportunity to take those funds and tailor them in such a way that they genuinely are used to subsidise farmers in delivering a genuine public good? This is a massive opportunity.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I have been a critic of the CAP, as he has, for many years, but the pillar 2 arrangements under the CAP and the environmental stewardship arrangements under the CAP were positive and there was a net benefit from those. I want the Government to set out the new arrangements they propose, so that we can be sure that the environmental protections remain in place, and that that money is not frittered away on something else.

The Government must provide answers to Parliament and the public, who want to be reassured that our environmental protections are not to be weakened in some Brexit bonfire of the regulations. The environmental protections we have enjoyed under the EU are not bureaucracy to be done away with; they are part of what it is to live in a civilised country that respects the natural world and believes that the only prosperous future is a sustainable one.

So, finally, I ask three key questions. Will the Government now move swiftly to ratify the Paris climate agreement? How will the Government press for access to the internal energy market? How will the Government ensure that energy bills do not go up as a result of the increased investor uncertainty following the vote?

Ultimately, the Government must commit to safeguarding environmental protections to at least the same level we have enjoyed within the EU, by passing into UK law all those regulations that would otherwise fall away upon leaving the EU.

Air Pollution (London)

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on initiating this crucial debate.

The great smog of 1952 killed some 3,500 people directly and many more indirectly. The public outcry led to the hugely successful and almost revolutionary Clean Air Act 1956. Next year will be its 60th anniversary, as has been said, and air pollution is very much back as a significant public health issue. I will not go through all the bad news, because it has already been relayed, but I make one point: more than 1 million Londoners live in areas that exceed legal limits on nitrogen dioxide, and that should be enough to highlight the importance of the issue.

As London expands—its population is expected to hit 10 million by 2030—the problem will inevitably grow, and tackling it will require the same level of energy that stopped the 1950s smog. Despite some of the things that have been said, I think we have seen leadership from the Mayor. For example, no other city in the world has a congestion charge and a low emissions zone, or plans for an ultra-low emission zone; I accept that there is a strong case for bringing forward the establishment of the ultra-low emission zone and for the zone to be bigger.

We have seen record investment in cycling over recent years in London and take-up has radically increased, but given that we cannot invent more roads, we will need that trend to ramp up massively if we want to avoid absolute gridlock on our streets. For the same reason, we should be investing in infrastructure to make far greater use of the river to carry freight and, for that matter, people. The numbers have improved in recent years, but they need to be ramped up dramatically.

London is growing by the equivalent of two extra tube trains a week—the equivalent of one bus every two hours—so it is hard to exaggerate the case for expanding our rail and tube network. We also need a revolution in electric car ownership. It is extraordinary that, despite falling costs, the fact that getting around in electric cars is dramatically cheaper than conventional alternatives and the installation of 1,400 new charging points in the past three years—a consequence of the Mayor’s intervention—that revolution simply has not happened. It will inevitably happen; the market dictates that it will, but the market needs a boost. The economics are already such that there is no reason why new minicabs should not all be electric or zero-emissions, or why companies with big fleets, such as delivery companies, are not automatically replacing their old vehicles with electric alternatives. The maths already stacks up, but somewhere along the line we need a powerful nudge.

London has the largest electric hybrid bus fleet in Europe, but the vast majority of London buses are still diesel. Many cities, including New York and Rome, have introduced whole fleets of electric buses. We have to ask how long will it be before all our buses in London are electric—or at least zero-emissions in other forms. I only learned this recently, but construction equipment, such as diggers, accounts for a staggering 14% of particulate emissions in London. Surely contracts should be awarded only to construction companies that have retrofitted the engines or have vehicles that are new and clean.

There is masses that we can do in London—I do not have time to go through the full list—but central Government must play a role. Denmark and France have introduced highly successful feebate schemes; a new tax is placed at the point of purchase on the dirtiest cars, with all the proceeds being used to bring down the cost of the cleanest alternatives. It is revenue-neutral, it is not retrospective, it is popular and it works.

While I am on the subject of central Government and without wanting to repeat too much of what has already been said—although I am loving the consensus—I want to emphasise that if we are serious about air quality, the Government simply have to rule out Heathrow expansion. Heathrow is already in breach of legally binding air quality limits, and any expansion would make that far worse. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has just produced data showing that Heathrow is likely to be the second most polluted part of London by 2030, irrespective of whether it is expanded.

It is worth noting that one extra runway would lead to 25 million extra road passenger journeys, and, according to Transport for London, the cost of accommodating that by adapting our road networks is £15 billion more than Heathrow bosses have admitted. To put the issue in context, Heathrow expansion is incompatible with any prospect of meeting any legal air quality standards. It needs to be removed from the agenda once and for all. I thank you, Mr Crausby, for your indulgence.

Kew Gardens

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. We have 90 minutes, but I will keep my remarks relatively short because there is an appetite for further speeches, although I admit that I would have preferred it if there were more MPs here for this debate on an important issue. I am here to defend a jewel in my constituency, but I am not here because Kew gardens is in my constituency. Kew gardens is a national, even an international, treasure, and I will briefly explain why.

Kew gardens has been a world-class centre for botanic research for nearly a quarter of a millennium—250 years. William Hooker, who was a director of Kew gardens in the mid-19th century, was Darwin’s principal sounding board for his theory of evolution, and it is said that “On the Origin of Species” would not exist without Hooker and Kew, certainly not as we know it today. Kew gardens goes back a long way, and today Kew has the world’s largest collection of living plants. It has one of the world’s largest botanical library collections, and it has more than 7 million specimens in a herbarium, including 350,000 “type specimens,” the original specimens on which new species descriptions are based.

Kew gardens is a UNESCO world heritage site. It attracts 2 million visitors a year and is one of the UK’s leading tourist destinations. Each year, 100,000-plus schoolchildren go to Kew to learn about plants. The extraordinary millennium seed bank, which I will address in a few moments, is the largest plant conservation programme in the world and I am told that by 2020 it will hold seeds from 25% of the world’s plant species. People will know what I mean when I say that Kew gardens is not just a constituency concern.

It is easy to see all that as nice to have, as of academic interest only, but at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, plants are central to our life. Without plants we would not exist, so I will briefly focus on the world-leading science at Kew. Before this debate I received many letters from Kew’s members, staff and scientists, as well as from general lovers of Kew gardens. I had one letter from a member of Kew’s staff that cited one key area of Kew’s scientific work. She said:

“Taxonomy is something Kew excels in, in fact we are the world leaders. Taxonomy is a science that will rarely hit the news headlines or draw in funding. However; taxonomy underpins all biological scientific research. If we didn’t know one species from another, or how many species there are; or where they exist in the world, how would any other biological, conservation, climate change, ecological restoration, food security, or medicinal research take place? Taxonomy underpins science the world over, and Kew is currently the world authority. It would be a terrible mistake and an irreversible loss to science to jeopardise this.”

She is right, and that is just the start of Kew’s science. Kew has been involved in cutting-edge plant chemistry research to identify anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory and anti-diabetic properties in British plants. Kew is building a one-stop-shop register of medicinal plant names and researching medicinal uses of our own British plants. Our flora consists of some 1,600 species, of which 400 are believed to have medicinal properties. A quarter of all prescription drugs come directly from plants, and right now, as if just to prove the point, Kew is looking for potential Ebola drugs based on the tobacco plant.

Kew’s work on climate adaptation is also world-leading. It is using the natural characteristics of wild relatives of mainstream commodity crops such as coffee, which is among the most important economically, to breed climate resilience into commercial varieties. If we consider that, as a species, 80% of our calorie intake comes from just 12 dominant crops and that 50% of our calories come from just three big grasses—wheat, maize and rice—the in-built vulnerability of the global food economy is self-evident. Imagine what would happen if we were to lose any one of those crops. Kew is leading work on building resilience into the essential commodities on which we all depend.

Kew is leading studies on wild bees, which are hugely important given our dependence on pollinators and the fact that pollinators are declining rapidly in this country. Kew provides the Government with top-level advice on climate change, biodiversity and the illegal trade in wood from endangered species—the list goes on and on. We face countless challenges across the world, but the challenge that dwarfs all others is the environment. As the world’s population continues to grow, and as our appetite for resources continues to escalate, we are ravaging the very ecosystems on which we all depend. It is a mathematical certainty—this is not my opinion but a fact—that, unless we change dramatically, we will find ourselves scrambling to compete for ever-dwindling resources, and Kew is part of the solution. Kew is more important than ever, yet we have chosen this moment in our history to jeopardise its future.

I will put that in context. In 1983, 31 years ago, 90% of Kew’s funding came from Government. That has dropped below 40% this year. In April 2014, it was announced that there would be further cuts of £1.5 million and that up to 125 jobs, mostly in scientific research, would have to go, and Kew faced a £5 million hole in its budget. As of 1 December 2014, there had already been a 22% reduction in core science staff. The very small silver lining is that that appalling threat to Kew’s future has caused people from all over the world to rally to its defence. Here in the UK, 100,000 people signed a petition in a matter of weeks, and I was pleased and honoured to deliver the petition directly to No. 10 with my friend, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Outside of that process, ecologists, conservationists and scientists from across the world have expressed real anger about the decision. The brilliant biologist Jane Goodall described the cuts simply as “unbelievably stupid”. I am thrilled to hear that, starting tomorrow, the influential Science and Technology Committee will be holding an inquiry into those cuts.

In the face of that storm, the Government felt compelled to offer some kind of reprieve. In September 2014, the Deputy Prime Minister was wheeled out to announce that funding would be maintained until April 2015. I think that he and other members of the Government had hoped that that would be the end of it, but it was only a pause. People could see that it was a delay, a temporary reprieve, so the campaign persisted. On the back of today’s debate, the Government have felt compelled to move yet again. This morning, just a few hours ago, they announced that a further £2.3 million will be awarded during the 2015-16 financial year, which is clearly good news. It gives Kew time to prepare and adjust, but it is only a reprieve.

It is worth noting that Kew has already lost a considerable number of its scientific staff, so the reprieve is not good news for them or, frankly, for their work. What it shows, however, is that the Government know that they massively miscalculated and misunderstood the level of anger that their decision would provoke and the value that we all attach to Kew and its work. The petition demonstrates that public campaigning can work, and I pay tribute to all the members of the public who signed it, as well as to all the celebrated ecologists, conservationists and scientists who succeeded in shifting the Government’s position.

Where now for Kew? I do not doubt that structural improvements can be made and that savings can be found. Kew has been run by scientists for many years, and it has suffered decades of underinvestment. From our conversations I know that Kew’s management and staff are up for the challenge, but the Government have to provide a realistic trajectory, over years not months. Kew is not looking for the odd reprieve. Kew cannot look to the long term if its funding arrangements are so short-term and so uncertain. Yes, Kew scientists know that they will have to look for other sources of revenue, but there is also a risk in that. There is value in, and a desperate need for, public-interest science, which does not always lend itself to commercial considerations. An obvious example of that is genetically modified food. Governments and businesses fall over themselves to invest in GM, but so far all the promises of cheap pest control, and crops that tolerate floods, salt and extreme weather, simply have not materialised. A different type of biotechnology, traditional hybridisation, has delivered those products, and at a tiny fraction of the cost. Using new technologies such as gene marker mapping and genome sequencing, conventional breeding has quietly delivered—

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Zac Goldsmith]

Before we were interrupted by the Division, I was making the point about the importance of pure public-interest science and saying that such science does not always lend itself to commercial considerations. The example that I was giving was GM food. As Members will know, GM food has attracted an enormous amount of Government time and commercial investment, despite the fact that it has not lived up to its hype. GM food has not delivered on the promises that have been made over the years, of cheap pest control and crops that tolerate salt, extreme weather, floods and all the rest of it. By contrast, more traditional biotechnology—traditional hybridisation—has delivered those products. For example, in recent years it has delivered drought-tolerant and flood-tolerant varieties of rice, with high yields and so on, using techniques such as gene marker mapping and genome sequencing. However, it has not received anything like the level of investment from industry or the level of energy from Government that GM food has.

The cost of bringing a single GM crop to market is roughly $136 million, but the cost of bringing a non-GM variety, through these more traditional means, costs one fiftieth of that sum. Businesses and Governments are not falling over themselves to back traditional biotech because there is very little money in it for them. Improving crop varieties that farmers can use year after year is clearly not as profitable to industry as a GM model that requires farmers to purchase patented seeds year after year, locking them into dependence on the giant companies, just three of which control a staggering 70% of global seed sales. I give this example, and there are many other such examples, simply to show why we need pure public- interest science. It is important and if we push Kew purely to the commercial, which is where I think it will head if these cuts continue, we risk losing something inherently important and valuable.

I will end by quoting Richmond’s greatest living resident, Sir David Attenborough, who, as people can imagine, has taken a keen interest in this issue. He said:

“The important thing to remember is that Kew is the premiere botanical gardens in the world scientifically. People who think it is just a place to go to look at pretty flowers and flower beds are mistaking the importance of Kew Gardens. The Seed Bank is of world importance and it should be supported by the Government like a proper institution or university. And the continuing idea that Kew Gardens is merely a playground and that it should just put up the prices to look after itself is a misguided assessment of the value of Kew. The Government and the scientific departments should recognise that and support it properly.”

Like Sir David Attenborough and so many other people, I urge the Government to rethink their plans—even further than they have this morning—and to provide a genuine, long-term plan for Kew gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alan. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and all hon. Members on their contributions made both today and at other times when the future of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has been discussed. I also congratulate Kew on its approach to refreshing how it delivers its science in the 21st century.

As lead Government sponsor for Kew, the funding that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides helps to support the institution as an international, collections-based, centre of expertise in plant and fungal identification, taxonomy, conservation, sustainable use and related research. It helps to support Kew in its role as a UNESCO world heritage site and supports Wakehurst Place, which is managed by Kew and is home to the millennium seed bank. The funding also supports Kew in its roles as the world’s most famous botanic garden, an important visitor attraction, which has been highlighted by hon. Members from London, and a provider of science-based education to the public.

Kew was founded over 255 years ago. The Government and Kew’s shared challenge is to ensure that its structure is resilient and fit for purpose to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Its new science strategy is vital. Kew is recognised throughout the world for its unrivalled assets and expertise, and we want further to enhance that reputation. Kew is not simply another academic institution; it maintains a world-renowned collection, which enables it to be unique in the science that it can provide. This debate and the Science and Technology Committee’s hearing tomorrow on the future of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew will help to inform the final details of a new science strategy for Kew.

We have been able to offer relative protection to Kew in terms of total Government funding. Average funding has been more than £27.4 million a year over the past five years. Between 2007 and 2010—the last comprehensive spending review period—the average was less than £27 million. Others have already mentioned it, but I am pleased to confirm an extra £2.3 million unrestricted resource funding for 2015-16, which the Government secured through the recent autumn statement and which was announced today by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I want to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the need for a full, open stakeholder meeting. The grant that the Minister alludes to is a one-off, a reprieve, a delay and nothing more than that, so there is a need for such a discussion. I ask him to address that point directly. If he could facilitate that meeting, I am sure that we would all appreciate it.

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will return to that point and some of the long-term issues later.

The funding announced by the Deputy Prime Minister today maintains Kew’s resource funding at 2013-14 levels right through to April 2016, which is in recognition of the need to embed the restructuring in order to deliver a sustainable future for Kew and the globally recognised science work that it provides. The funding is in addition to the announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in September that unrestricted resource funding for RBG Kew will be maintained until April 2015 at 2013-14 levels. Kew was provided with an additional £1.5 million to honour that.

We fully support Kew’s efforts not only to balance the budget, but to increase commercial and other sources of funding. That approach not only reduces reliance on Government funding, but potentially opens up additional and new opportunities. In support of that, I can confirm that we have extended to Kew more of the freedoms that are available to certain museums and galleries, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) referred. In particular, that will mean that Kew can bid for preferential Government loans to pursue projects that will enhance its ability to grow self-generated income. Kew has been asking for that and I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that today.

Kew is already a valued partner in delivering DEFRA’s strategic evidence priorities. It has unique assets and globally respected expertise and is a top performing scientific institute that helps to deliver DEFRA’s science objectives. I welcome Kew’s approach to refresh how it delivers that science in the 21st century. In turn, that will help to deliver what people want of Kew and what the Government need. I support Kew’s restructuring as it will enable the right skills to be in place to secure long-term success, to maintain a world-class facility and to be able to respond to future challenges. Kew’s scientists directly support DEFRA’s work in several ways. For example, they contribute to international biodiversity, to tackling climate change globally and to a resilient, sustainable and growing food and farming industry. They help with the bio-security system and our ability to respond to plant, pest or disease outbreaks and contribute towards halting the loss of biodiversity in England by 2020.

Kew has a dedicated, committed and professional work force, but it needs the right skills to deliver a new scientific vision and to respond to future global challenges. It cannot afford not to change. It may be easy to think that it is all about reducing costs, but the restructuring is about securing long-term stability for the institution and creating and maintaining a world-class facility for future generations. That will enable it to make a unique contribution to meeting the 21st century’s great social and environmental challenges, to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred in his opening remarks.

Restructuring will also ensure succession planning by introducing new career and development opportunities for staff, so that future generations have the capability to continue its science legacy. Kew cannot afford not to change if it is to continue to be the world-class organisation that we all want it to be. The restructuring clearly impacts on individuals in different ways. It is too early to tell what that means for every person working at Kew, but Richard Deverell and his team are offering every support to the people affected by the transition.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I worry that the Minister is approaching the end of his speech, so I want to make a point before he finishes. Some of Kew’s key work, as the Minister and other Members have identified, clearly crosses over into the realms of the Department for International Development. Has the Minister’s Department approached DFID at any point to ask whether what would represent an almost immeasurably small pinprick in its budget could be diverted to support specific work at Kew that relates to poverty alleviation, building resilience into the global food economy and dealing with climate change?

[Dan Rogerson]

Part of Kew’s restructuring involves making it better able to look at other opportunities, some of which may come from other sources of public funding. We want to make it ready to take advantage of that.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

May I make a little progress? I want to refer to the points made by other hon. Members and, indeed, those made by the hon. Gentleman.

Turning to heritage, it is an important Government priority to meet our obligations as a state party to the world heritage convention. We are working with Kew to ensure that it is using resources effectively and looking for innovative ways to maintain and secure a long-term effective use of the assets that it manages. We will continue to involve our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in those discussions. We have invested considerable capital funding in recent years to help Kew reduce operational costs and increase self-generating income, including support to the temperate house restoration project, where we underwrote £10 million, which is a UNESCO management priority.

On the issues raised by hon. and right hon. Members the debate, I have sought to set out that the coalition Government have had to deal with public spending challenges to reduce the deficit. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) was at pains to point out his ideological leanings. Mine might be slightly different, but we can agree that we need to tackle the problem facing the country in order to deliver growth and guarantee future investment in public services. Although DEFRA has faced a budget reduction, as have all Departments, Kew has done slightly better than DEFRA more generally. My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was concerned that non-departmental public bodies are at the end of the queue. That is a bad pun, but it is not the situation with Kew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I appreciate the unexpected perk, having spoken when I initiated the debate.

I do not know whether it is appropriate to ask the Minister to intervene, but I would welcome a clearer answer to my question on DFID funding, which is crucial. A lot of work that Kew does falls within the remit of DFID. If his Department has not yet approached DFID, will it now commit to doing so? DFID does some wonderful things, but no one would argue against the fact that huge chunks of money presided over by DFID are not as well spent as they might be. Kew would present a great opportunity to spend that money well.

I acknowledge the answer given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the stakeholder meeting. When are we likely to hear back from the Minister about that meeting? There is not a lot of time between now and the election, and the meeting should happen before it. Although I am grateful for today’s bung, my concern is that it is a political device to kick the issue beyond the general election. As Members and campaigners, we are aware that if we are to have long-term stability for Kew, it will need to be secured this side of the election, because negotiating afterwards will be much harder.

[Dan Rogerson]

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, I will have to confirm with my noble Friend Lord de Mauley whether any such approach to or discussions with other Departments such as DFID have happened. The institution is going through a process and has been exploring with our officials in DEFRA the best path for getting to its future, but if we can help it to have conversations with other Departments, I am sure that that is possible and very much part of the bottom-up process of Kew deciding what would be appropriate. We would facilitate a conversation, rather than seek to push another Department to make a budget available unless it fits its core priorities. I will take the suggestion of a meeting back to my noble Friend.

On the hon. Gentleman’s political points, all the political parties are setting out our stalls for future funding. There are challenges. He and other hon. Members will look at what all the parties are saying about future funding of public services and will make up their own mind. With regard to the funding for Kew, however, the money is in place for 2015-16.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, in particular, for campaigning so hard, which is appreciated by my constituents and by the staff and friends of Kew. It has not gone unnoticed. Personally, I am grateful to him for having pushed the issue so high up the agenda. We would not be having the debate or have seen the press release about the extra funding this morning had it not been for his leadership. I am also grateful for all the speeches.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Before my hon. Friend finishes, may I say how strongly I support his message to the Minister that he should be talking to DFID? The Department for International Development is simply awash with cash. It has had a bung of an extra £5 billion in the past four years. So much of the work that Kew does is overseas, helping developing countries, so I am sure that my hon. Friend and I can make a compelling case to the Minister to go and nick some of that cash off DFID.

[Zac Goldsmith]

With that, let us commit here and now as hon. Members and Back Benchers to visit the Secretary of State for International Development to make that case. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I thank you, Sir Alan, for presiding over the important debate. I hope that it is the beginning, not the end, of something positive.