Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps his Department is taking to support food producers after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in the United States on departmental business, representing UK interests. I know that he has already written to you about that, and he sends his apologies to the House.

Last week, the Government launched a consultation setting out the policy framework for agriculture after the UK leaves the European Union. This Command Paper outlined a series of proposals to help farmers invest in their farms and become more profitable, to support new entrants coming into the industry and to support collaborative working in areas such as research and development.

[Neil Parish]

There was nearly a state crisis this morning: the pedal came off my bicycle at Vauxhall bridge. I managed to get here just in time.

I very much welcome the Command Paper. It talks much about having a greener and better environment for the future, but does the Minister agree that part of that agriculture paper must include the means of production—good-quality production—and our being able to increase, rather than decrease, the food that we grow in this country as we go forward with a new British agricultural policy?

[George Eustice]

I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes. He and I both have a background in the farming industry, and we recognise the importance of this strategically vital industry for our country. He will know that we have a manifesto commitment to grow our agriculture industry and produce more food. Our consultation outlines a number of proposals, including improving both our productivity and research and development.

Leaving the EU: Live Farm Animal Exports

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 200205 relating to ending the export of live farm animals after the UK leaves the EU.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I thank everyone who signed the petition, and especially its proposer, Janet Darlison, who for many years has shown a tireless devotion to pursuing the issues around live animal exports and to calling for those exports to be ended. Through her consistent efforts, and together with her husband, supporters and many others, she has raised public awareness about the issue, which is one of the reasons why the petition received such support.

I am leading the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. The petition did not quite meet the threshold of 100,000 signatures that would usually trigger a debate, but the Committee felt that it was such an important issue and that there is such public awareness about it that it was right and appropriate to call a debate on it.

It is clear that exporting live animals is a complex and emotive issue. There is a variety of views about it, some of which are held very strongly. As I considered this debate and looked at the many representations and documents that were sent to me about it, which expressed a variety of views, one clear theme emerged: anything we debate today is at the moment covered by EU regulations and law, and any changes we choose to make will have to wait until we actually leave the European Union. That brings the situation that we face into sharp focus.

We all understand and agree that Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and has a proud history on animal welfare. I am sure that all hon. Members would testify to the sheer volume of correspondence we receive whenever an issue relating to animal welfare arises, whether it be about bees, puppies or live farm animals being exported. As a nation, we care deeply about our animals.

Sadly, for far too long, the animal welfare regulations that we have been forced to apply, particularly with regard to farm animals, have been determined by the EU. In many cases, they do not reflect the widely held views and values of the British people. We hope to change that. This issue is one of many good reasons for the UK to free itself from overburdening EU regulation and bureaucracy. It is worth noting that the UK’s animal welfare standards are among the highest in the world. From farm to fork, our farmers care deeply about the animals that they rear, as do the vast majority of people.

Last year, the Conservative party manifesto made the commitment to take early steps, as we leave the European Union, to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter. I absolutely support that position, and we should seek to take those steps soon after leaving the European Union.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to be clear that when animals are ready to be killed, they should not travel to be slaughtered, or be taken anywhere? They should be slaughtered right next to where they were reared. However, we do not want to get muddled: animals can be transported for further fattening, if they are transported in the right vehicles—with the right air conditioning and in the right type of vehicle for that species. We need to differentiate the two.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend pre-empts a point that I will make later. We need to differentiate animals that are exported and slaughtered shortly after they arrive—I see no point in that—and those that are exported for other reasons, such as for breeding stock or for fattening on. We need to consider those two different categories.

With the Conservative party manifesto commitment, the amount of support that this petition received, and the ten-minute rule Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has proposed, it is clear that this is a timely debate and an opportune moment for us to consider these issues—not least because of the awareness and concern among the general public.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, many people accept that there are differences between exporting animals for slaughter and for other reasons. At times, there are many good reasons to export animals, such as for breeding stock or for rearing on, but there seems to be no good reason to export an animal that is simply destined to be slaughtered soon after it reaches its destination. I can find no good or valid reason for that type of export to continue.

Air Quality

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department will take to improve air quality after the High Court ruling on 21 February 2018.

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

In July last year, we published the UK plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Yesterday, the High Court handed down its judgment following a challenge to that plan, and the judge dismissed two of the three complaints that were considered in relation to England. Specifically, he found that there is no error in the Government’s approach to tackling NO₂ concentration exceedances in areas with some of the worst air quality problems, and that the national air quality modelling and monitoring that underpin the plan fulfil our legal requirements. On the five cities identified in 2015 as having particularly marked air quality challenges—Birmingham, Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Leeds—the judge found that the Government’s approach to tackling their exceedances was “sensible, rational and lawful.”

The Court has asked us to go further in areas with less severe air quality problems. We previously considered that it was sufficient to take a pragmatic, less formal approach to such areas. I wrote to several councils in November, and that was followed up by officials who asked them to provide initial information on the action they were taking by 28 February. However, in view of the Court’s judgment, we are happy to take a more formal approach, and I have already written to the local authorities, asking them to attend a meeting on 28 February to discuss that information and their plans, and whether they can take any additional action to accelerate achieving compliance with legal limits of NO₂ concentrations. We will follow that up in March by issuing legally binding directions that require those councils to undertake studies to identify any such measures. As required by the Court order, we will publish a supplement to the 2017 plan by 5 October, drawing on the outcome of the authorities’ feasibility studies and plans.

As we set out in the 2017 plan, the Government are absolutely committed to improving air quality. We have pledged to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it. Later this year, we will be publishing a comprehensive clean air strategy, which will set out further steps to tackle air pollution more broadly.

[Neil Parish]

Minister, I believe that you are working very hard to improve air quality. This is not just about legislation; it is about practical actions to improve air quality. Are you, as Minister, getting enough co-operation from other Departments, including enough money from the Treasury, to address this serious issue? A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report found that particulate matter pollution costs some £16 billion a year and dramatically affects people’s lives. Does the Minister agree that preventive action would be far more cost-effective?

The High Court did find that the Secretary of State’s approach to the timetable is “sensible, lawful and rational” but not enough leadership is being provided in respect of all the local authorities with illegally high air pollution levels. Does the Minister agree that a new clean air Act will provide proper leadership, while allowing local authorities real autonomy to address the pollution levels they face at a targeted local level?

I welcome that the Government can be held to account through the courts and through Parliament, but does the Minister agree that the judgment is too focused on compliance when what we need is a much more detailed, wide-ranging and practical air quality plan? Clean air should be a right, not a privilege. I believe we need to hear much more from the Government now and we need to speed up the whole operation of cleaning our air.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is important, as he points out, to remember what we have already achieved on air quality, as well as what we are doing with local authorities. To remind the House, air pollution has improved significantly since 2010: nitrogen oxide emissions are down 27%, sulphur dioxide emissions are down 60%, particulate matter emissions are down by about 11%, and volatile organic compounds emissions are down by 9%. That is why we are investing £3.5 billion to improve air quality and reduce harmful emissions. Some of that is £1 billion to support the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles. Specifically with regard to the air quality plan, we set aside nearly half a billion pounds to help local authorities to develop and implement their local air quality plans. About £90 million has been given through the Green Bus fund and we continue to try to reduce emissions in other ways.

I remind my hon. Friend that we intend to end the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. He talked about a wide-ranging plan. I have been working on that for a while. He knows that we will be bringing forward a comprehensive clean air strategy. In particular, I am absolutely focused on particulate matter. That is why we issued a call for evidence on domestic burning with regard to smoky coal and wet wood. We are looking forward to receiving more responses to that. On money from the Treasury, we have been given substantial funds to try to work this through. I agree with him about prevention in relation to issues such as particulate matter.

With regard to powers in a clean air Act, we need clean air action. Councils and the Government already have a lot of powers. It is about being prepared to make very difficult decisions at times. That is why I urge the leaders of councils, including those I wrote to yesterday, to really grip this issue on behalf of the people they represent and we represent. It really matters that we take direct, effective local action to ensure the future health of our citizens.

Leaving the EU: Agriculture

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate and getting Back-Bench time. It is also good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who I know is very supportive of farming, agriculture and the countryside. It was good to hear what he had to say. I agreed with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when he said that the countryside and farming are intricately linked, and that farmers are very much a part of the community. He may be a farmer’s son who is no longer a farmer, but I am a farmer’s son who is still a farmer. We have much in common, even if he is not farming now. We were both born on a farm and have farming in the blood.

As we move forward, we have to look at exactly what we want agriculture and our land to provide. We want it to provide good, wholesome food, and a good quantity of food. Let us not just play at farming; let us have proper production. The common agricultural policy has many sins, but the money that comes in through the basic payment scheme is used by the farming community—especially family farms—to keep farming going and to keep it profitable. Contrary to popular opinion, most of it, especially in the livestock sector, does not drive food prices up. I suggest it probably keeps them down, because it keeps a level of production going, which is key as we leave the EU.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into all the commodities. Some 70% of our exports go to Europe, so we need a combination of support payments, continuing into the future, and access to that market. We cannot have a New Zealand or Australian-style policy, because when the New Zealanders and the Australians got rid of subsidies they had virtually no regulation on their farmers whatsoever. The result would be a perfect storm were we to say, “Okay, we’ll allow all the food in. Let’s not worry about tariffs. Let’s have the cheapest food we can get from South America—Argentinian and Brazilian beef. Let’s get our sheep meat from New Zealand. Let’s not worry about the cost and the price of produce in this country.” We cannot do that, for the simple reason that we want an improved environment, and our farmers will have many controls, quite rightly, on the way we control water and nitrates, and the way we help to stop flooding. All those things are great benefits, but they come at a cost.

There needs to be a real policy, and I know the Minister is very keen to see that. I welcome the support payments, but whatever period we have them for, I do not want them to stay roughly the same and then fall off the edge. Whatever we do, we change the system of payment and move farmers in another direction. Certainly, we can make farming more competitive, and we can give grants and support, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, to help that happen. However, when it comes to livestock and the sheep and beef sectors, it is very difficult to see, given the present pricing structure, how those industries will thrive without some support.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) rightly talked about the availability and affordability of food. That is why we need enough production. We can have a great farm shop and a great tourist attraction, and we can sell food to our tourists—that is all great stuff—but it is perhaps 1% or 2% of the total production in this country. It is no more than 5% of food. We need to make sure, as we go into our large retailers as consumers, that we get British food. Back in the ’80s, around 80% of food was produced and consumed in this country, but that has gone down to 60%. Perhaps some tastes have changed. Even though we have a bit of global warming, I do not think that we can quite grow bananas, oranges and rice yet. Seriously, though, we still have a great opportunity to produce more food.

We also have a great opportunity to keep the environment sound. Where we draw water for our reservoirs, let us look at the amount of nitrates going into that water. Such things are important; however, every time we restrict a farmer in his or her operation, there is a cost. I do not think that our consumers and the population of this country really see the opportunity that that offers to support farming. I do not believe that we should control farming so much that we stop that production and the income from it. We have to do a combination of things. I know the Minister is very keen on looking at insurance policy and how we might remove some of the fluctuations in price. All of that is right, but the policy has to be a practical one that farmers can afford to buy into.

As we go forward, we must also look not only at ways to get new entrants in, but at our tenancy laws and how we rent our land. Perhaps slightly contrary to what I have been saying, as much as we like the support that comes to farming through the basic payment scheme, there is an argument that it drives rents up and can therefore make land, particularly for young entrants and other coming in, more expensive. As we target the payments, they must end up in the pockets of those who do the farming, manage the land and look after food production and the environment. I am very keen to see that that happens.

I do not believe that coming out of the EU will be a disaster, or that it will lead us to a great sunny upland where everything will be rosy—perhaps the Minister and I may slightly disagree on that. I think we have to be realistic as we leave. Food production is necessary. I am very fond of our Secretary of State, and I know that he loves to talk about the environment, but I want to hear more about food, farming, production and how we are going to feed the nation. It is important that we keep those exports going and that we have a market that works.

The environment is great, but we need a market along with the environment. We need profitable agriculture above all things. The Minister will know as well as I do that if someone goes to the bank manager and they are not making a profit, they will not stay in business for long. I have huge confidence in the Minister, and I am sure that he will have huge influence on the Secretary of State, so that when he gets to the National Farmers Union conference in a couple of weeks, we will hear about food production and how we will keep farming and food going in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Flood Re has really helped to cover residential properties, but what about a guest house? Is that a business or a residence? Can it actually get affordable insurance? Businesses, and small businesses in particular, are finding it difficult to get affordable insurance.

[Dr Coffey]

As I have said, I have taken up the issue of leasehold properties, and I have had the issue of commercial properties raised with me. Flood Re was a big and quite fundamental change in this country. In fact, every householder supports other householders for a limited period of time to help with flood resilience. It would be a massive change for businesses in one part of the country to subsidise other businesses because of their location choices. I recognise that this is not a straightforward issue, which is why we continue to work with the insurance industry to improve cover.

Forestry in England

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fifth report of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Forestry in England: Seeing the wood for the trees, Session 2016-17, HC 619, and the Government response, HC455.

It is always pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is good to see my friend from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs here. I have forgotten her constituency. Sheffield, is it?

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Penistone and Stocksbridge.

[Neil Parish]

Penistone and Stocksbridge, that is right. It is also good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), who sat on the Select Committee in the last Session and had a lot to do with this report, and who also chairs the all-party parliamentary group on forestry, and other hon. Members. It is also good to see the Minister is still in her place—congratulations.

Forestry and woodland provide multiple environmental, social and economic benefits. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that woodland provides at least £1.8 billion in social, environmental and economic benefits each year. Trees are beneficial for carbon capture, reducing flooding and improving air quality, as well as providing timber for commercial production and creating green spaces for people to relax in and enjoy. But it was particularly disappointing to hear the Government say that there is no need for forestry representation when discussing the UK’s exit from the EU. Given the nature of research and development and that forestry research is already underfunded, I ask the Minister to reconsider keeping this funding in place, in particular for disease control. I found the Government’s response to our report, if I may say, disappointing. I hope she will be able to address some of the concerns we all share about forestry.

I very much support the ambitions of the northern forest and I look forward to the Government bringing forward the practical application of creating a great woodland across the north of England. I ask of the Minister that at some stage we will be able to discuss exactly how this will be achieved. We have the national forest, which we will be able to expand, but I am keen to see whether we can find ways of bringing land into tree planting and take the farming community with us as we do it. There will be land very suitable for tree planting. The land north of Hull is some of the best arable and vegetable growing land in the country. We need to ensure we have this balance.

I am sure the Minister will also consider the type of forest we require. We require tree planting for the environmental, social and community benefits, but what really matters is how we deliver a large forest in the north of England in the future. I want to see a mixture. For instance, take the Blackdown Hills in my constituency: there is a lot of forest, farmland in between, copses and areas where people can stay, walk and enjoy themselves. Woodland is great and woodland is right, but we also need a mixture of landscapes for it to be enjoyed. I always remember driving through the Redwood forest in the United States of America. We drove through the forest for some three days. One of the Americans said to me, “Gee, have you been to the Redwood forest?” and I said, “Yes, I have, but I’ve almost seen enough of it.” I saw a tremendous amount of trees and they are fantastic, but I think we need a mixture of landscapes to really make it enjoyable for the public.

In our report we asked for a one-stop shop for farmers and landowners to get grants and advice on which trees to plant. So far, the Government have resisted this idea, but I think it will be more and more important to do that, because we have environmental schemes, which we can change as we move to a British agricultural policy that is much more linked to forestry, but we also have to ensure that support can be accessed reasonably easily and that it is encouraging farmers and landowners to plant trees. I have said many times in this House that when I was a young farmer, if I borrowed a lot of money to buy land and said to my bank manager, “Well, now I am going to plant trees,” he would say, “Mr Parish, you should plant something that may bring an income in a little sooner, rather than 50 or 60 years hence.”

I am not asking for a licence to print money for farmers, I am just saying that if we want to encourage farmers to plant trees—I believe that on marginal land and certain types of land they will be quite keen—they need the right support. Why should a farmer—perhaps a seventh generation, or even first generation, sheep farmer, beef farmer or arable farmer—be told, “Right, you must now plant trees.”? I do not think any Government will do that, but we can encourage farmers to plant more trees. This northern woodland will be a real challenge, but it could also be very successful. However— I say again—it has to be done in the right way.

I spoke before about the countryside stewardship scheme. We have found in the past few years that there have been fewer schemes in place and fewer trees planted. There is a real opportunity now, because the schemes under the EU common agricultural policy do not allow for enough tree planting, and where they do, we have to work out whether the tree is a tree or a sapling and all sorts of complications. I am sure that is something we can make much better.

I also acknowledge that the EU is part of the problem and that post-Brexit the policy can change. Farmers, I believe, will be interested in planting more trees. We can also plant trees in banks to help with flooding. We can have more forestation, more woodland, greater wildlife and retain soils in the fields and stop communities from being flooded. There are many advantages to changing this. Today, I listened to the Prime Minister set out our 25-year environment plan, for which I have much enthusiasm, but now I want to see the practical application of how we will meet these goals. If we want to change a financial regulation in banking, we change it and that hopefully fixes the problem, but if we want to plant millions of trees, we have to physically plant those trees, we have to find the land and the policies to do it. I am not saying that we cannot do it, but what matters is how we deliver that in the future.

Timber from the woodlands has many economic benefits. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has done much work on timber, timber use and natural timbers being used in this country. We also need to look at that. Going back to the New Forest—do we want woodlands just for recreation? Do we want them for the carbon capture? Or do we also want them for the wood they will provide in the future? We sometimes think that trees live forever. They do not, and we need to cut them down and then replant, so let us look at the type of trees that we are growing.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Would it help to improve access to, and the quality of, smaller woodlands if crafts using wood grown within the same woodland were always regarded as ancillary to forestry within the planning guidance?

[Neil Parish]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. It will also be about linking the woodland and the craft to a given area. We could do the same with types of wood and the crafts that come from them as we do with food, farming and types of cheeses. It is an interesting point. Linking it to planning is not necessarily the responsibility of the Minister today, but is something that I am sure the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government could look at.

Coming back to timber, we now have an opportunity to grow a number of types of trees. We also have an opportunity to advise farmers, landowners and those who want to plant trees on the varieties and species to plant. It is very difficult, and nobody can be blamed for this, but who would have known that we would be facing Chalara and ash dieback? We were not facing it a few years ago. In the south-west and in parts of Scotland, the larch has virtually all had to be cut down because of disease. As we move forward, it is going to be so important that we have the right types of trees so that it is right for recreation, the right scale, organisation and landscape of planting, and that we plant the trees that, hopefully, will be there for generations. That, in itself, will be a big challenge.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I invite my hon. Friend to come up to my constituency where Delamere forest nurseries, which are part of the Forestry Commission, grow many different types of trees and look in particular at future climate change impacts and what species will be best to plant.

[Neil Parish]

If I can get the Whips to allow us to get as far as Vauxhall bridge before calling us back for a vote, I will definitely try to get up to my hon. Friend’s constituency. She is absolutely right. Naturally, we are looking for ash trees that will have a resistance to the dieback. Where I farm in Somerset we had elm trees completely destroyed by Dutch elm disease in the ’70s and ’80s, and we are yet to find an elm tree that is resistant to the beetle and to Dutch elm disease. Those sorts of things are so important so that we have our native trees as well as new trees that can be brought in.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as we seek to select the correct species mix in certain areas it is important to take account of local knowledge? In my constituency, the Friends of Leckhampton Hill and Charlton Kings Common has a huge number of volunteers who help to maintain local woodland and up on the Cotswold escarpment. Their views should be taken into account; does he agree?

[Neil Parish]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about local knowledge, because sometimes a local tree, or the strain of a tree in a given area, is the one that we need to plant. That is so important. I always say that it is good to have 25 letters after your name, but sometimes those who have real local knowledge, know exactly what they are doing over the years and have had experience also need to be listened to. I would endorse that entirely.

With the renewable heat incentive, biomass boilers are a means by which we can grow some woodland—some hardwoods and others. We can also thin woodlands out to manage them in a better way. I have to admit that I spent 10 years in a terrible place called the European Parliament—I know that there will be a lot of hissing and booing at that point—but I did actually see a much better management of woodland in parts of southern Germany, in Austria and in other countries. They were actually using their woodland and the wood resource much better. We see woodlands for sale in many parts of this country, and people buy it as an investment and enjoy having a bit of it, but they never really do much to it. Woodland can be a greater resource for not only biodiversity and wildlife but timber, and that is where we can do more.

On ancient woodland, I better not mention the Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who likes to chain herself to every ancient tree that she finds, and quite rightly so, because she is very concerned about ancient woodland being cut down. We do need to consider that. Again, we have heard from the Prime Minister that trees need to be protected, and we are keen to see that happen.

Finally, when the Minister sums up, will she tell us exactly how she sees the way forward towards having DEFRA, Natural England and the Environment Agency completely joined up in delivering more trees, more woodland planting and a better grant system that is more accessible, easier and more attractive to those who want to plant trees in the future, so that we fulfil our aspirations to plant more trees? Can we also encourage organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others, which are doing so much good work, with even more help? I am a great believer that planting more trees is good for recreation, good for the environment, good for carbon capture and good for wood production.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach).

One of the few areas of the economy where we can be fairly sure that Brexit will lead to an increase in activity is tourism. The fall in the pound relative to other currencies has already led to a boost in our tourism from domestic and foreign visitors. The nature of our countryside is crucial for the future economic health of our country.

Woodland makes a vital contribution to the feel of that countryside. It is not easy to quantify, but if I were to ask anyone who knew anything about England to paint a picture of the English countryside, I would take a fairly safe bet that it would have at least some trees in it.

I do not underestimate the importance of trees as commercial timber. I would support any measures that would increase our ability to meet our timber needs from trees grown in this country, but we need to bear in mind that the tourism value of woodlands—especially ancient woodlands—is usually much greater than their timber value.

We need a woodlands policy that maximises the tourism value of our woodlands while also meeting our timber needs. Some of the classrooms that I was taught in as a small boy were built in wood back in the 13th century, so it is certainly a very durable material.

[Neil Parish]

You weren’t there then!

[Sandy Martin]

I was not there when they were built, no.

To maximise that tourism value, we need woodlands that are large and established enough to boost biodiversity. Small copses and individual trees have great value, but we need some larger forests in this country, although I do not wish to replicate the American redwood forests of the nightmares of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).

We need to protect our biodiversity-rich ancient woodlands wherever they are. We need more trees of all sorts and trees to fit with our other economic and land-use needs, but I take this opportunity to press for the protection of ancient woodlands, for more serious forests in the UK in the future, and for policies that ensure that those things are achieved.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing this debate and for chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee so eloquently and constructively. It was a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship for the first two years of my parliamentary career in Westminster. I also welcome the Minister back to her place. It is a pleasure to see her and I look forward to working with her open-door policy over the next few years before she goes on to even greater things.

I have a declaration to make. The forestry and wood-processing sector is well represented in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire: we have three sawmills, including the largest single-site sawmill in Wales—BSW’s at Newbridge-on-Wye—which employs 148 staff. Over the past decade, BSW has invested more than £6 million in the site, which produces more than 150,000 cubic metres of saw and timber each year for the construction industry and for the fencing and landscaping markets.

Given that I represent a large rural constituency in which forestry and timber support so many jobs and families, hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I have served as chair of the all-party group on forestry since 2015, when I was elected. Not many of its members are present today, but it is always well supported and it represents all sectors of this country. Unusually, Scotland is exceptionally well represented. Sadly, not many Scottish Members are in the Chamber—I am sure they have all rushed off to their trees in Scotland because they miss them when they are down in London—but the Scottish Government are leading on tree-planting and forestry. England, Wales and Northern Ireland could do with learning from Scotland. This is probably the one and only time I will ever say that, but I do give Scotland credit.

I am proud to have served for the past two years on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and to have contributed, along with three other hon. Members present—my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and our Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton—to its important and constructive report. I am sure you have read it from cover to cover, Mr Davies, so I will not dwell on it for too long.

[Neil Parish]

We will test him later.

[Chris Davies]

Absolutely. Despite its title, our Committee’s inquiry looked beyond England, and a number of our recommendations are relevant to the forestry and timber-processing industries throughout the UK, which employ nearly 80,000 workers and contribute £2 billion to our economy each year. Forestry businesses operate across geographical boundaries—Forest Sawmills in my constituency has operations in Worcestershire and in south-west Scotland. This diversity is reflected in the make-up of our all-party group, in which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) sits alongside the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). Forestry crosses not only constituency and country borders, but party lines. Long may that continue.

This is the second Westminster Hall debate on forestry since I was elected in 2015. In December 2016, while the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was considering forestry in England, I secured a debate on tree planting in the UK. Much has happened since, but sadly not all of it has been positive. Our report noted in March 2017 that the UK was the third-largest importer of timber in the world, behind only Japan and China. Since then, unfortunately, the UK has overtaken Japan to become the second largest importer of timber—at a time when the World Wide Fund for Nature warns that global demand for wood will triple by 2050. That, perhaps more than anything, demonstrates clearly why it is so important for Parliament to make its voice heard and send a strong signal to the Government that the UK must plant more trees now to ensure a secure and growing supply of domestically sourced timber in the future.

I have referred to the considerable investment in timber processing in my constituency. I am pleased to say that rising demand for timber products, which is good not only for our environment but for our economy, means that similar investments have taken place up and down the country. However, investment in processing capacity by companies such as Norbord, Egger, and James Jones and Sons is entirely linked to the availability of the raw material they require—timber. The industry body Confor—the Confederation of Forest Industries—predicts that, unless tree-planting rates are greatly increased, the UK faces a timber gap in the next 20 years. We can plug that gap by taking action now, but there really is no time to lose.

Our report referred to:

“Getting the most out of forests and woodland”

and highlighted the need for a “long-term strategy for forestry”. It is self-evident to those of us with even a passing knowledge of forestry and timber processing that, as hon. Members have said, any strategy for the sector needs to be long term. It takes at least 30 years for a sustainably grown spruce tree to be ready for harvest. To put that in perspective, the trees being harvested now were planted when Ronald Reagan was President of the USA, the USSR was still in existence and, perhaps most surprisingly of all, the now untouchable Manchester City were in the second division of the Football League. Changed days indeed, Mr Davies.

Our report recommended that

“the dual benefits of agriculture and forestry should be recognised by having a single grant scheme to support both sectors.”

It also urged

“those in the forestry sector to approach the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and Rural Life Opportunities as early as possible with any concerns, opportunities and thoughts they have on the forestry sector when the UK leaves the European Union.”

I am pleased to say that the forestry sector, under the umbrella of Confor, has done just that—it has had very positive talks with the Minister. I began my speech by welcoming her back to her place. One thing I can say is that her door is always open, both to Members of Parliament and to the industry. She is always prepared to have discussions, and I thank her for that.

The industry has published an excellent discussion paper with proposals for how a common countryside policy can support forestry and woodlands in the UK when this country leaves the EU, which it will. It has also made great efforts to engage with environmental non-governmental organisations, farmers and landowners to find common ground on how best to support the Government’s aspirations for a green Brexit and how to replace the common agricultural policy. In October, Confor published a joint statement with the Woodland Trust and the Country Land and Business Association, setting out guiding principles for the Government to follow to support our forests and woodlands in the years ahead. I urge the Minister to consider those principles.

Many people with an interest in forestry have an understandable fear that it is the forgotten F-word, constantly competing for attention with food, farming and fisheries. It does not get the attention that such a successful industry, which provides good-quality jobs in rural areas such as Brecon and Radnorshire, fully deserves. Next time hon. Members speak about our countryside and its great rural businesses, I urge them not just to praise farming and fisheries—although they do need praising, believe me—but to make a point of saying “farming, fisheries and forestry” instead. It is not often that using the F-word improves a sentence, but that was a good example. I am pleased to commend our report and thank our Chair for introducing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for her words, for her contribution to managing our woodlands better in future and for the tree planting into the future. Now that we are bringing forward a tree champion, perhaps we have the opportunity to look again at our woodland grant system, to see if we can bring it and pull it together.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. My wife and I take the dog around Battersea Park in the morning when we are here in London. Those trees have been planted for generations, so we can enjoy them now, and they have also seen many political parties come and go. We can be absolutely assured that were we to need a cross-party approach to planting trees for the future, as Governments of all persuasions come and go, that is probably the one thing that we can agree on.

Seriously, trees breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, so they are good not only in the countryside but in our cities. They can be our lungs for the future. We can also make much more of our wood industry. We can have everything if we do it in the right way. My final point, as I started the debate, is that as we plant more woodland, we should ensure that it is a mixture of trees and landscapes, so as to provide good access to such forest for all people, whether it is recreational or good for the environment and carbon capture. It can also be good for our future to have more wood in our houses.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Animal Welfare

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I commend Lesley Griffiths, the Welsh Labour Minister who is responsible for this area in the Welsh Assembly Government, for the constructive way in which she has engaged with DEFRA over the past six months. I hope to see her next week to carry forward discussions on this and other areas.

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

I very much welcome higher welfare standards, cameras in slaughterhouses, and tougher sentencing, but as we enhance our welfare, we will also add cost to production. We want to ensure that our consumers eat high-quality product with high welfare standards, and that we do not import inferior quality meat with lower welfare standards.

[Michael Gove]

The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee makes an excellent point—I know that the Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the impact of leaving the European Union on food standards overall. Critical to high food standards is the viability and improved productivity of our farmers who do such a wonderful job.

UK Fishing Industry

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for initiating it. I know of her great experience in the fishing industry. As she, above all others, will know from her personal loss from fishing, safety at sea is paramount. I pay tribute to her.

We look forward to our very able Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), going to the December Council and coming back full of fish, and making sure that we have sufficient quota for our fishermen, because there is the science now to be able to say that for most quotaed species there are enough there for our fishermen to catch.

I am amazed that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is so pessimistic about the common fisheries policy. Whether we were a Brexiteer or a remainer, I think we can all accept that the one section of society that got well and truly stitched up when we first went into the Common Market was the fishing industry, because it put forward quotas that were reasonably accurate, while others put forward quotas that were not, and we landed up with a very small supply of what were potentially our own fish.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I completely agree: I think we were stuffed —is that parliamentary language?—when we joined. But I am not pessimistic about the common fisheries policy; I am realistic, and the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that in the last 15 to 20 years, since we undertook these reforms, the picture has been improving.

[Neil Parish]

I accept that there have been improvements to the common fisheries policy, but there were many improvements to be made. We are getting on now to having discards banned from the common fisheries policy, which we as a nation can work on much better. We can also use a fishing management system similar to that of the Norwegians, where we can shut down an overfished area very quickly; they can do it within a day, whereas it is impossible to move that fast when there are 27 countries trying to come to an agreement. There are great opportunities to be had. There is no doubt—there are figures to prove it—that the European fishing vessels take from our waters some £530 million-worth of fish and we take about £110 million-worth of fish from their waters, so whichever way we look at it, there will be benefits for our fishermen.

[Mr Charles Walker]

As Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will my hon. Friend look at the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) about making bass a recreational species only? Will he and his Committee look into that?

[Neil Parish]

As Chairman of the Committee, I would be delighted to look at that. We look at all the evidence and look at exactly what can be done. There is a real place for recreational fishing, just as there is also very much a place for professional fishing. I would be very happy to look into that matter.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

As part of the study that the hon. Gentleman has agreed to undertake, will he look at the value to coastal towns of recreational fishing? In 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimated that it was £2 billion a year. My angling shops, my coastal bed and breakfasts and my hotels all benefit from bass fishing, but the moratorium on anglers taking sea bass is a disaster for coastal towns.

[Neil Parish]

I actually believe that, as we come out of the common fisheries policy, there will be enough fish for everybody. If we manage the fish stocks much better, we will have every opportunity. We need to make much more of the fish that we catch, not only in the area of recreational fishing but in areas such as fish processing. I believe that we will have greater access to fish and be able to land much more of our fish on to our own shores, but when we do that, we must ensure that we process it and add value to it. We must also—dare I say it—say to all our population that we eat many types of fish when we go to the continent and to other parts of the world that we will not eat here. That is key, because we still have a huge market. Some 70% to 80% of the fish we land in the west of England is exported to France, Spain and across the rest of Europe. Those markets are very important, so we need to ensure that we get the fish, manage the fish stocks and market the fish.

On the question of Brexit and the common fisheries policy, we have a moment now, as we negotiate, when we have very positive cards in our hand. We can say to our neighbours, “There are historical arrangements that we will look at, but at the end of the day, you will fish the amount that we agree under our rules, and that is the way it will be.” If we are absolutely firm with them —I expect the Minister to be exactly that—we can get a reasonable deal with our neighbours. I think our neighbours will deal with us in a fair way on this issue because, to be absolutely blunt, they have two choices. They can have the fish under our rules or they will not have the fish at all.

I want to reinforce the point that we must not negotiate away our fisheries again. Our fishermen did not forgive us when we did that the first time round. If we do it a second time, they will never forgive us. This is not just about our fishermen and what percentage of the overall economic benefit comes from fish; it is also about what is morally right and wrong. This is something that we can now put right. I am convinced that this can work, with the right policies in place. I suspect that the Minister is minded to keep a lot of our existing systems of catching through quota in place. Let us have evolution, not a revolution.

On discards, let us ensure that we land everything that we catch, so that we know exactly what the stocks are. Let us also look at which types of fish will recover if we put them back into the sea. Let us have a smart system of managing our stocks. I believe that we will do well in the future. We can manage our fishing better, and we must ensure that we police our waters as we leave the common fisheries policy.

Fly-tipping in Rural Areas

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The challenge is not just to collect the data. A constituent of mine with a large estate regularly finds that people have been fly-tipping on it. Once, while sorting through the rubbish, he found a receipt from a fast food drive-through that included a date and time stamp. He and the local police managed to find the vehicle registration number, but when they went to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency they were told that it could not release the name because of data protection. There has to be a way of using the evidence that we can get, because we cannot rely solely on catching the villains in the act, which is extraordinarily difficult, particularly in rural areas. Installing cameras everywhere would be prohibitively expensive, impractical and completely unrealistic. There has to be a better way of dealing with the evidence trail. My hon. Friend makes a sound point.

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

It is really good that we are having this debate. It is not only about catching the perpetrators, either through the local authority or the Environment Agency; it is also about making sure that they are prosecuted and that the fines are very heavy. Otherwise, it is worth their while tipping the waste and saving the money, rather than taking it to a waste disposal site; if they are caught and fined, the figure is so small that they can carry on doing it. We really need to catch them and make the penalty a deterrent, because at the moment it is not.

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that 0.1% of fly-tippers are prosecuted, and the average penalty is a £400 fine. There is absolutely no disincentive, so why would they stop fly-tipping? That has to change.

What can we do to make the system work better? If tips just charge more, or indeed shut for four days a week, clearly that just makes the problem worse. If we do not extend opening hours, all we are doing is discouraging good citizens and good builders from disposing of their rubbish responsibly at the end of the working day.

I think that increasingly councils are trying to do this for less and less money. The consequence is that they have no incentive to extend their opening hours or reduce the cost. My local authority has recently started charging for the disposal of green waste, and the consequence has been a huge increase in fly-tipping of green waste. Indeed, in Teignbridge fly-tipping has gone up by 60% in five years, and the increase correlates with the introduction of additional charges, when there is a spike in the number of fly-tipping incidents.

Another thing that local authorities have done to try to constrain their costs is to say, “We will deal only with waste that is produced by people living in our borough or ward.” The consequence is that people are now turned away from their nearest tip. Realistically, if the Government want to encourage people to recycle and to be responsible for their waste, they need to make that easier. In the neighbouring constituency of Torbay there is a sign at the tip stating, “You have to provide evidence that you actually live in this part of Devon before you can dispose of your waste here.” We are never going to solve the problem that way.

It seems to me that we have effectively incentivised the individual householder to fly-tip, or to employ a third party to fly-tip for them, and we have incentivised the man with a van who might do furniture removals and so on to offer tip services, but then he does not get a licence and instead dumps on highways, woodland and farmland. It just does not work.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned, the penalties, even if they are imposed, are woefully low. In the magistrates court someone can get 12 months and a £50,000 fine, but I am not aware that anyone has had either of those penalties. In the Crown court they can get up to five years and an unlimited fine, but again I am not aware—perhaps the Minister is—that anyone has received those sorts of punishments. It really is a problem, and the evidence problem is probably one of the biggest challenges.

Ultimately, the Government have said that the polluter must pay, but based on everything that I have seen and everything that my colleagues have said, the polluter currently does not pay, so let us look at things in a little more detail. Who is the polluter? At one extreme, one could say that it is the owner of the rubbish. Under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the owner has a duty of care to check that the individual to whom the rubbish is given for disposal is properly registered. I do not suppose that most people know that, that they check or that they would even know where to check. They probably also do not know when people have to be licensed, which is far from clear.

I went on the Environment Agency website, and most of the legislation and registration information was about disposal sites. There was little about the movement of waste, unless it is stored or controlled, so that might be an area to look into, or maybe I just do not have enough experience of the regulations and the Minister will be able to set me right. However, it seems as though it is quite difficult for householders to comply with that duty of care—they do not know about it and they do not know where to go to find the information. Section 33 of the 1990 Act contains a similar duty for controlled waste, and I suspect that most households are more conscious of how to dispose of fridges, batteries and electrical equipment, but there are no specific penalties or punishments. Perhaps the Minister can set me right, but I am unaware of any owner who has been on the wrong side of the law for having given a third party rubbish that has subsequently been dumped.

As for the middlemen—the man or woman with a van—for them it is a question of whether they need a licence. Most of them probably do, because they probably do store the waste somewhere along the line, but few in the business can be bothered and that leads to criminal activity. They know that the chances of getting caught or going to prison are small, so they do not bother, and they get paid when the rubbish is handed over, not when it is delivered to the tip, so where is the incentive? To fix what is wrong with the system, we need to increase the carrot and increase the stick, and we need to be clear about what fly-tipping is and not just lump it with litter or managed waste disposal, because it lies somewhere in between and is something that my constituents and many others are getting exercised about. It damages our countryside and our tourism, and it is a blight on our society.

The Government are right that one of the obvious first steps is to ensure that education is in place so that our children grow up knowing what they should and should not do. That is fine, but there are many people beyond the age of 18 who do not know that, so how are we going to get to them? That is another question for the Government. We then need to look at how to incentivise legal tipping. We must review whether we should completely remove tip charges. When they are set against the clear-up costs and the amount received in fees, we can start to see whether there is a balance. Perhaps the Minister has some ideas about that. It must also be right to extend tip opening times, because people work. We need to recognise that both mum and dad are usually working, so that means we have to allow tipping when they are not working. If people are prepared to come and dispose of waste legally, we need to enable sites to take waste from wherever it comes, which is not always the case.

We also need to consider the individuals who are the potential polluters. We need to extend the rubbish owner’s accountability. They ought to be required to ask for and see someone’s licence, and they should not pay for the rubbish to be taken away until they get some stamped receipt from the tip to say that it has actually been disposed of. The idea of trying to track waste is a good one, and we could track white goods with today’s technology; there must be barcoding, chipping systems or some means by which to do that. When we do find evidence that makes clear from which home the fly-tipped rubbish came, there should be a mechanism to trace it back to ask the householder whether they have disposed of any rubbish and who they used to do so.

Then there is the carrier, licensed or not—the man or woman with a van. How will we extend their accountability? Because of the challenges in securing a successful prosecution, the number of prosecutions has actually gone down 25% in the past year. What might we do? Maybe we could require some record keeping. At one level, a registered and licensed carrier has to keep records, but we could extend that by requiring tachographs and GPS systems. We should review again the penalties and fines, whether there are custodial sentences and at what level, and whether we should seize assets.

There is provision in some cases to seize the vehicle, which is obviously a good thing because it stops the practice continuing. If the vehicle is crushed, it clearly stops the fly-tipping completely. But there are other assets that we might consider seizing to increase the disincentive. If no fine is paid, there is also the threat of credit reference agency records. If non-payments were logged on those records, it would clearly be a black mark, and most people do not want their credit reference in any way negatively affected. We might also consider lifetime bans for anyone who is found to be undertaking such activity without a licence.

There are a number of issues. We need to consider better interagency working. It would certainly help if the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency were prepared to work with local authorities to identify the cars, drivers and owners—having an evidence trail is very important.

I turn now to the victims. Landowners are stuck. Two thirds of farmers have reported fly-tipping of one sort or another and, under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, they can be required by the local authority or the Environment Agency to clear up 100% of the mess, but they are not the polluters.

It is impossible to prevent fly-tipping cost-effectively. My local community has tried by digging ditches around carparks and by putting up fences and cameras, but the cameras get smashed by the fly-tippers. It is very difficult. Only 13% of farmers and landowners tend to insure, so very few of them are covered.

Insurance is expensive and fly-tipping is hard to prevent, so we need to consider how we can support landowners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) said, because they do us a great service by keeping our land beautiful and fit for tourism. How can we share the costs with the local authority? How could we subsidise the landowners’ insurance? How could we allow the disposal, free of charge, of anything that has been dumped on-site?

Will the Minister consider making sure that the polluter pays, that waste can be tracked, that it is easier to dispose legally and that householders think before they dump so that we can preserve our wonderful countryside? I thank her for her attention to this real issue.