Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what consultations her Department has undertaken on the implementation of the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
Defra has undertaken two formal consultations relating to the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019. They were: “Invasive Non-native Species: Tackling Invasive Non-native Species – A new enforcement regime” and “Management measures for widely spread Invasive Alien Species (IAS) in England and Wales”. These consultations ran from from 9 January 2018 to 3 April 2018 and 18 July 2019 to 12 September 2019 respectively.
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will amend the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019 to permit the licensing of vet practices and wildlife hospitals to release grey squirrels in areas where they pose no risk to native squirrel populations.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
Releasing grey squirrels back into the environment, even in areas away from red squirrels, would encourage a wide range of further negative impacts associated with this species towards other native species, forestry assets and national parks.
The release of grey squirrels can only be allowed as a management measure under the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019 if it contributes to the population control, eradication or containment of the species. The Government will, therefore, not be updating this Order to permit the release of grey squirrels by veterinary practices or wildlife hospitals. The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not allow grey squirrels to be kept or released. The Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order, which came into effect on 1 December 2019, thus brought England in line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Any grey squirrel that requires medical attention can be taken to a licensed facility where it can remain for the rest of its natural life.
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the cost to the public purse is of each badger cull zone; and what estimate she has made of the economic cost-benefit of each of those areas to date; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
Bovine TB is one of the greatest animal health threats to the UK and the disease costs the public over £100 million a year, with the cost to the farming industry around £50 million a year.
The Government badger cull costs are published annually on the GOV.UK website and can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-government-badger-control-costs.
The 2019 costs are still being calculated and will be published later this year. Costs are not broken down by cull zone.
The most recent badger control policy value for money analysis, carried out in 2019, estimates the Net Present Value i.e. the monetised benefits of Badger Control over 11 years at £1.08 million per area.
Further information can be found on GOV.UK at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-badger-control-policy-value-for-money-analysis.
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department plans to continue expanding the boundary of the minimum infected area in Cumbria in the event that the Animal and Plant Health Agency continues finding badgers outside that area which are infected with TB; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
In Area 32-Cumbria the cull area is made up of two parts, the minimum infected area and the outer cull area. The minimum infected area is based on:
Therefore the boundary could be expanded if evidence shows that infected badgers are found outside the boundary, as it was in 2019.
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for what reasons the original planning for the minimum infected area (MIA) in Cumbria did not include barriers to prevent badgers from passing to and from the MIA; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
Natural barriers to badger movement were used, as far as practical, for the outer boundary of Area 32 to minimise the risk of possible perturbation effects. Area 32 is made up of two parts, the minimum infected area and the outer cull area. The outer cull area acts as a buffer between the minimum infected area, where the majority of infection is located, and those outside of the cull area.
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the Government has made an assessment of the potential merits of a buffer zone around the minimum infected area in Cumbria for the vaccination of badgers, and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
A ‘buffer zone’ currently operates around the minimum infected area in Area 32-Cumbria; this is referred to as the outer cull area (OCA). Both the minimum infected area and the outer cull area together make up the intervention area.
The OCA is based on estimated average badger social group territory size surrounding the minimum infected area, to take into account the possibility that infection may have already spread in the badger population. The boundary was adjusted to adhere to natural barriers to badger movement as far as practical to minimise the risk of possible perturbation effects.
The results of testing of badgers from the 2019 cull are still being analysed. When completed they will inform decisions as to what type of badger control method should be applied in 2020.
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent evidence her Department has of the effect of invasive non-native species since the publication the 2010 technical report entitled The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain by Frances Williams et al.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
The evidence that invasive species are having an ever greater impact on biodiversity, globally and domestically, is undeniable. The 2019 Environmental Audit Committe report, developed using a wide range of evidence sources, highlighted the risks these species pose to native biodiversity. It also called for greater levels of prevention, management, control and public awareness regarding invasive species and their negative effects on the environment.
Defra is also in receipt of the 2019 UN global assessment report on biodiversity which concluded that “the numbers of invasive species per country have risen by around 70 per cent since 1970” and that “invasive non-native species have contributed to 40 per cent of the animal extinctions that have happened in the last 400 years and are the biggest threat to biodiversity on islands”. Defra is aware that the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services found that invasive species were one of the top five direct drivers for changes to nature and were included in a list with climate change and pollution.
Reports such as “The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain” remain highly relevant, as the impact of invasive non-native species (INNS) has not decreased since the report was published. Defra recently however commissioned a scoping study aimed at documenting the current evidence in relation to the ecosystem service impacts of INNS in the UK. This study[1] sought to determine the feasibility of expanding on the 2010 report by estimating natural capital costs incurred by INNS, alongside the direct economic costs which the 2010 report focused upon.
[1] Scoping study: ecosystem services and natural capital costs of invasive non-native species in the UK - BE0162 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=1&ProjectID=20315
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of planned works in preparation for High Speed Rail 2 around Steeple Claydon in Buckinghamshire.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
The Environment Agency (EA) is not aware of any current applications for any consents works for this area.
The EA determines applications on a technical basis, using information and data to inform judgements. It ensures that the applicant, with the EA’s input, has identified and assessed any potential impacts on the water environment. Any consent issued must contain appropriate conditions to protect against these impacts. An application can be refused on the grounds of unacceptable risk to the environment.
With regard to Natural England’s remit, the Phase 1 Environmental statement identified the principal ecological issues in this area as the loss and fragmentation of habitat used by bats; habitat loss and disturbance affecting at a number of local wildlife sites, and fragmentation of habitat used by black hairstreak butterfly habitat. High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) has designed a suite of woodland and other planting to address these impacts although the loss of ancient woodland at Decoypond Wood LWS cannot be fully compensated as ancient woodland is irreplaceable. HS2’s mitigation includes the Sheephouse Wood mitigation structure which will be provided to avoid potential impacts on bats crossing the HS2 corridor adjacent to Sheephouse Wood. Natural England has issued HS2 Ltd a bat licence for works in the Bernwood area.
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the scale of the problem of primates being kept and traded as pets in the UK.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
There is no doubt that primates are complex creatures requiring specialist care. I recently met with the owner of a leading specialist primate rescue centre who informed me about the rising numbers they are having to take from private care. Given these issues I am looking at the options for banning the trade altogether.
In the meantime, we have strict laws in place restricting the keeping of primates and action can be taken if a primate is being kept in poor welfare conditions. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal or to fail to provide for its welfare.
The 2006 Act is backed up by the statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-human Primates that provides essential information for any primate keeper on how to meet the welfare needs of the primates in their care. The Code is made under the 2006 Act and can be used as evidence in court in support of a prosecution made under the 2006 Act.
If anyone has any concerns about the way a primate is being kept they should report to the relevant local authority, who have powers to investigate such issues, or to the RSPCA who can also investigate and take action.
In addition to the animal welfare controls, the keeping of most primates requires a licence under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (DWAA), which is issued by a local authority. The DWAA licence is primarily to ensure public safety is protected.
The trade of primates is regulated through a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) licensing system. Under this system, the international, commercial trade of the most endangered primates is prohibited, except under exceptional circumstances. Whilst it is not in itself a welfare measure, CITES does contain welfare provisions for the transport, keeping and moving of animals, including primates.
Asked by: Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of further restricting the keeping of primates as pets beyond that set out in section 4 and section 9 the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
There is no doubt that primates are complex creatures requiring specialist care. I recently met with the owner of a leading specialist primate rescue centre who informed me about the rising numbers they are having to take from private care. Given these issues I am looking at the options for banning the trade altogether.
In the meantime, we have strict laws in place restricting the keeping of primates and action can be taken if a primate is being kept in poor welfare conditions. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal or to fail to provide for its welfare.
The 2006 Act is backed up by the statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-human Primates that provides essential information for any primate keeper on how to meet the welfare needs of the primates in their care. The Code is made under the 2006 Act and can be used as evidence in court in support of a prosecution made under the 2006 Act.
If anyone has any concerns about the way a primate is being kept they should report to the relevant local authority, who have powers to investigate such issues, or to the RSPCA who can also investigate and take action.
In addition to the animal welfare controls, the keeping of most primates requires a licence under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (DWAA), which is issued by a local authority. The DWAA licence is primarily to ensure public safety is protected.
The trade of primates is regulated through a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) licensing system. Under this system, the international, commercial trade of the most endangered primates is prohibited, except under exceptional circumstances. Whilst it is not in itself a welfare measure, CITES does contain welfare provisions for the transport, keeping and moving of animals, including primates.