Draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 General Committees

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share my thoughts on the regulations and to follow up with the Minister on several points that I have already raised in the House through other means.

The issue of flooding and the need for better water management that comes hand-in-hand with it have regularly been in the headlines since the beginning of December last year. Rightly, much consideration has been given to the issues, including how best to minimise flood risk. It is therefore timely that the regulations have finally come before us today, with the relevant consultation having concluded some 12 months ago. The explanatory memorandum published alongside the regulations is helpful in setting out their objectives—the Minister has outlined them—which are

“to reduce administrative burdens on applicants undertaking activities which require prior approval because they may impact on flood risk or flood risk management.”

It is important to set the issues we face today in the context of what has gone before, so that we can examine the regulations and seek assurances that they do not compromise the effects of positive past measures.

By way of background, prior consent has been required before certain activities are undertaken on main rivers since the passage of the Water Resources Act 1991, with various byelaws having since been passed by the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. It is perhaps appropriate to highlight up front that one of the core functions of the Environment Agency is to

“operate at the place where environmental change has its greatest impact on people’s lives”,

including undertaking work to

“reduce the risks to people and properties from flooding”.

Currently, the dredging of silt, sand or other material from main watercourses is regulated under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, as amended. We need to be assured that the proposed changes will not compromise what those existing regulations achieve.

The regulations before the Committee—made under powers in sections 61 and 90 of, and schedule 8 to, the Water Act 2014—will establish a new scheme under the environmental permitting framework to regulate activities on or near watercourses in England and Wales. More specifically, the regulations provide for the regulation of “flood risk activities”, replacing the current flood defence consent scheme. Managing such risks is a vital role of both the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales respectively. Without such regulation, a host of activities, when carried out on or near main rivers and streams, can significantly affect flood risk. It is a well established principle that, in an effort to avert that possibility, flood defence consent must be sought. Without such regulation, watercourses and flood plains could become blocked or constrained by works, leading to flooding and damage to other property that might otherwise not have occurred. In a similar vein, flood defence structures might also be damaged with the same effect, or maintenance activities could cause environmental harm.

In short, such construction works and maintenance activities, when poorly executed, can increase flood risk, directly cause and/or exacerbate flooding, and cause damage to the surrounding natural environment. It is for precisely those reasons that prior permission, in the shape of flood defence consent, is required before works can legitimately be carried out. Consents are issued with precise conditions to ensure that the prescribed activities are carried out in such a way that increased flood risk or the likelihood of damage to the environment are minimised.

The Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales issue some 5,000 flood defence consents each year, which is clearly no small feat, and it is logical that both bodies would seek to streamline their processes to lessen the administrative burden not only on themselves but on applicants, too. Indeed, the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 did precisely that, rationalising various permitting regimes into a common platform that is easier to understand and use. Measures to progress that further and better harmonise the consent process are uncontentious. There is an element of common sense in allowing applicants who would otherwise require several permits for activities falling under various regulations on a single site to complete a single application and to be issued with one permit. The Minister has covered that.

With further Government cuts to the Department and to the Environment Agency, and with the huge strain that the organisation is under as a result, it is hardly surprising that further efficiencies are required. Fewer boots on the ground or, as my researcher suggests, wellies in the mud, inevitably mean that the organisation’s capacity will be stretched to its limits—some would suggest beyond them.

The regulations will allow the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales to concentrate their resources, as the Minister said, on what are deemed to be higher-risk activities. However, I would welcome it if the Minister explained risk a little more. How, for example, is risk calculated and modelled in these instances? What factors are accounted for when producing such calculations, and who will have responsibility for making the final judgment on whether an activity is high or low risk?

If streamlining processes is the key aim, surely such assessments cannot be conducted on a case-by-case basis, as doing so would require a greater time commitment than the current regime. Going one step further, how will the conduct of low-risk activities be monitored to ensure conformity with the prescribed conditions? What retrospective assessment is being considered to ensure that risk was properly assessed prior to works being carried out?

I will not need to remind the Minister that, in answer to one of my written parliamentary questions last month, he stipulated that:

“The Government believes that flood risk management…should be carried out by those best placed to do it.”

Who is best placed to carry out such flood risk management work? I am sure he will agree that risk, whether determined as being high or low, should be mitigated to the highest possible degree wherever it is identified, yet the role of the regulators is being restricted on that front.

It is also important that the Minister clarifies how his Department will develop and maintain effective national strategies and approaches to flooding and flood defences when activities such as these are being signed off without consent. Building on that point, I would be grateful if he could outline what thought he has given to granting further powers to expert groups, such as internal drainage boards and local authorities, to maintain watercourses.

The Minister knows that he would not be in a debate with me standing opposite him if I did not raise the issue of resources. Yesterday, he spoke of his hopes that the new regulations relating to waste management and the circular economy would save money for local authorities. Today’s regulations also appear to aim to reduce burdens in different parts of the system, but can he give a categorical assurance that organisations such as local authorities, drainage boards and others required to deliver more will have the resources to carry out the role he will require of them?

Finally, what plans does the Minister have to review the impact of the changes in the regulations on our communities and environment, so that Parliament can assess whether they are working or whether greater controls will be required in the future? I look forward to hearing his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend asks a very good question. The answer is that we began the communication process through a highly publicised speech given by the Secretary of State at the Oxford farming conference, which got a lot of coverage in the agricultural press. There is increasing awareness now among the farming community of this future exclusion, but clearly we can do more. We will do our best to work with my hon. Friend, with the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and particularly with the trade press, to make sure that farmers are now aware of the new procedures. In my experience, farmers generally cotton on very quickly to these kinds of legislative changes, but I am happy to take up the challenge if they want.

I will move forward to address the questions put by the hon. Member for Stockton North. Regarding the question of the calculation of risk and who calculates it, essentially that process has been led by water engineers within the Environment Agency. Some of the exclusions and exemptions are genuinely very low risk indeed. If we look through the list of the exclusions, it was necessary in the past to obtain a bespoke permit, in theory even if someone was just putting a floodgate over their house. Ambiguities within the legal drafting meant that anything that could possibly affect the flow of water, such as someone not letting water into their front door, could have required a bespoke permit.

In the past, putting a sign into a river required an entire bespoke permit. Now, there is absolutely no engineering evidence whatsoever that sticking a small pole into a river will have a significant impact on flooding downstream. However, to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I will point out that the process is very much driven by a cautionary principle—people are being very risk-averse. We have made sure that we have excluded only the very lowest risk activities. Again, registered exemptions are very carefully controlled. In fact, we have had some complaints from people who would like to see us go much further.

The reason we have had to be quite careful is that the measure has to apply to all rivers across the country; it is not possible for us to come up with a single set of rules without being very cautious. For example, there is a standard exemption for scaffolding to extend across 10% of a river. People come back to us and say, “Well, that doesn’t make much sense. If my river is only eight miles wide, you are allowing me to put only 0.8 meters of scaffolding into the river.” The reason for that is that we have to make sure we are very, very cautious, which is why nearly half of these cases will still require bespoke permits. We have to deal with the fact that every river is different, every condition is different and the hydrology of these different river systems is very testing. However, in straightforward cases—a noticeboard or a ladder going into a river, or a simple piece of work on banks, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—we have taken the view that a calculated risk makes sense.

Finally, on the question of who is best placed to make such decisions, whether on IDBs or the action of local councils, the draft regulations apply primarily to main rivers, which is to say the rivers and streams that we believe have a significant impact on a large degree of flooding. Most of the local authority responsibility will relate to flood risk in general and include a lot of rivers that are not classified under the regulations as a “main river”.

In terms of the resources to be brought to bear, we believe that rather than imposing more costs on individuals, the Environment Agency should be saved about half a million pounds a year—a significant saving—and businesses about £14 million over 10 years. Those financial savings are only the beginning, from my point of view; the real saving is getting rid of the forms. Nothing is more eroding to trust in Government in the general sense of energy and common sense in action than having to fill out forms to put a ladder or a simple signpost into a river.

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. None of us doubts the wise measures in place as far as the smaller things are concerned, but I am concerned about monitoring some of the more extensive work that will not require the same level of permit as in the past.

[Rory Stewart]

In order to deal with the serious stuff, which is to do with major works on bridges, culverts, banks, utility crossings and outflows—water coming in—a full, bespoke Environment Agency permitting system is in place and covers nearly 50% of the applications. Officers in such cases will require full plans, drawings and impact assessments, will have to inspect the individual rivers and will look in detail at the proposed works case by case.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sorry—I think I just invited the Minister to repeat what he said earlier—but I am talking about what will not require a permit under the regulations. He started to talk about the more extensive work, but he has addressed that; I am asking about the marginal stuff, where there will be changes. For example, 1.5 km of river is a fairly extensive piece of river, so I am interested in what monitoring of that will be like in future, so that we know the new regulations are working.

[Rory Stewart]

Dredging and the 1.5 km are perhaps a misleading example. That is about maintenance of silt levels in existing agricultural drainage ditches in areas that are not of environmental importance. The rest of the things that are excluded are, genuinely, very minor works indeed. We are literally getting down to the level of a ladder or a sign board being put daily into the river; a service crossing with an existing structure, or, in other words, someone putting an electric wire through a pipe that already exists in a bridge; a 48-hour temporary trial pit; an investigation borehole; or clearance of sediment traps. For anything above that, such as exposed gravel removal, a large outfall or headwall, or a large habitat structure, the full regulatory system remains in place. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 General Committees

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased at the opportunity to speak about the documents before us today.

The documents appear to move in the right general direction and offer no real controversy for any decision in Committee, but that is not to undermine or undervalue their importance. As has been said, the European Commission has long been looking at the efficient use of resources and the central means of achieving the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy. A number of steps have been taken in recent years.

As outlined by the Minister, the Commission’s thinking is that a transition to a more circular economy, where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained as long as possible and the generation of waste is minimised, is an essential element of EU efforts to develop a sustainable, low-carbon and resource-efficient economy throughout Europe. I do not think that any of us would disagree with that ambition of the EU. Indeed, the fact that the Commission withdrew the previous circular economy package in December 2014 to present a more ambitious strategy in late 2015 would appear to confirm that goal.

The new circular economy package that we are considering, adopted by the Commission in December 2015, looks like a candid effort to stimulate Europe’s transition towards the circular economy. Consisting of an action plan, timetables for completion, and various legislative proposals and revisions in a number of areas to achieve those goals, the package examines steps that may be taken at each stage of the value chain, looking specifically at both product design and efficiency of the production process, as well as such factors as the impact of consumer choice, waste management and the reuse of secondary raw materials.

The Minister has already talked about such considerations, but they are often not at the forefront of the minds of consumers or producers. With a new package in place, however, I very much hope that they soon will be and that many more organisations and individuals will recognise what we see to be the duty of us all. Given the increase in waste per UK person from 402 kg in 2013 to 413 kg in 2014, we face more waste going to landfill rather than recycling.

EU analysis suggests that further progress on resource efficiency is possible and identifies major environmental, economic and social benefits to greater efficiency. To that end, the Commission has identified net savings of as much as €600 billion for businesses in the EU, or 8% of annual turnover. That is quite a lot of money. Furthermore, the new package could reduce total annual greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 4%, which would be a major contribution to climate change measures.

Putting in place stronger measures to close the loop and create a circular economy by transforming waste into a resource is an essential part of necessary increases in resource efficiency if the European Union is to achieve its ambitious goals. Moves in that direction are certainly to be welcomed. However, that is not to say that the revised package is perfect. For example, in 2013 total waste generation in the EU was estimated at 2.5 billion tonnes, of which 1.6 billion tonnes were not reused or recycled. That amounts to a loss to the European economy, and a significant missed opportunity to improve resource efficiency.

I have already made clear my belief that making the transition to a more circular economy offers a key opportunity to generate new and sustainable competitive advantages for a stronger Europe. I am sure that the Minister and other Government Members will concur. We know, however, that only 43% of municipal waste generated in the Union is being recycled, leaving 57% to be dumped in landfill or incinerated. I wonder whether reducing the target for reuse and recycling of municipal waste—down from the previous goal of 70% to 65% by 2030 now—sends the right message.

Moves to limit the landfilling of municipal waste to 10% by 2030 identify a clear and tangible target, but 18 member states in 2013 sent more than half their waste to landfill. Some actually exceeded 90% landfill rates, highlighting perfectly the need to strike the intricate balance between ambition and achievability. The EU has set a 50% recycling target for household waste by 2020. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is positive, but does he believe it to be ambitious enough? Even so, we need to be clear about our own ambitions, not just because we feel the need to satisfy EU targets, but because we believe in the benefit of that circular economy and value the impact on our environment and economy. To understand that, I have a few questions for the Minister.

How will the Government ensure that the plan is implemented in the UK? While some authorities—particularly those in Conservative areas—are getting some respite from the Government’s cuts agenda, many are not, so their resources to drive their part of the plan are extremely limited. Business has also been hard hit in many areas—none more so than the north, where the floods of the past few months were at their worst.

How will the Government ensure that all local authorities have the resources to play their part in the circular economy? Some make a small profit from recycling—Stockton, my authority, is one of them—but many do not. The Minister has said how he favours a more consistent approach across authorities, so will he talk a little more about how he believes that can be achieved, so that we can have more streamlined systems?

What provisions will be put in place to ensure new responsibilities placed on business do not become a burden rather than help them to benefit? What will the Minister do at a European level—he will be Minister for Europe, next—to ensure that our neighbours, some of whom have a comparatively poor record in such areas, play their part in delivering the action plan? What plans does he have to report progress against the plan to Parliament?

All that said, no doubt the process is not straightforward, so much future tweaking will be needed around the edges of any future regulations and directives, as we learn collectively what works and what does not. That learning and the building of institutional knowledge across all member states will put us in a strong positon to make positive steps towards building a Union-wide green economy that is both sustainable and efficient. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers and to learning how he plans to ensure not only that the measures are properly adhered to and enforced, but that the all-important ambition for such a transition remains very much alive throughout the EU, with every state playing its part.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. Of the numerous issues he raised, I think there were three central ones. The first is resources for local authorities to ensure that they can achieve their objectives, which is an important point. The second is businesses and in particular how we ensure that we get things right for them. The third is what we can do to ensure that we engage with other countries through the European Union’s framework.

The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise the resources challenge. As he pointed out, councils such as Stockton have managed to extract a profit from recycling. In ideal circumstances, things can be done. Huge savings can be made from reducing the amount councils send to landfill because they will not have to pay landfill tax and, if they get separation right, it is possible to generate income from the different components being recycled. However, that is not always easy, particularly in remote rural areas and sometimes in certain urban contexts: some people living in apartments are reluctant to separate waste because they simply do not have the room to do it.

The answer is to work more closely on harmonisation. Our initial work in London has led us to believe that if we could have a harmonised recycling system in London, local councils could save between £19 million and £20 million a year. In the case of London, increasing recycling rates would not just be good for the economy but save councils money.

Furthermore, if we are sufficiently imaginative and reach out to the industry by getting the economies of scale, we should be able to drop the charges imposed by companies, who should be able to use a standard fleet to collect waste. At the moment, any number of different trucks are driving around and there are any number of different bins. Some trucks are able to collect only commingled waste while others attempt to separate, but there are problems with crushing plastic as opposed to preserving glass. If we can sort that out through a more harmonised system, that should deliver savings and not impose costs on individual councils.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister has already talked about the challenges in different parts of the country. London is a close, tight-knit part of the world, which makes things easier, but there is a real issue in rural areas. What will happen to targets for rural as opposed to city local authorities? Will they be different?

[Rory Stewart]

Our objective is to deliver the EU target of 50% by 2020 and then to move on to the targets for 2030. To provide a real challenge to rural areas and to show that it can be done, Wales is showing an extraordinary improvement. The Welsh approach to recycling has very quickly driven recycling rates from the mid-40s per cent. up to the mid-50s per cent., and that is despite working in some of the most challenging geography in Britain. My gut instinct, therefore, is that if Wales can pull it off, we can do better in other rural areas in Britain.

The second issue raised by the hon. Gentleman was to do with businesses and how much they pay. We have to get the balance right there, too. In Germany, for example, the equivalent of Tesco pays to collect the packaging of its own products, which can cost a great deal of money. Some estimates of what businesses collecting their own packaging are spending total billions of euros a year. In Britain, instead, we have adopted a producer responsibility, or PR, system of tradeable credits in recycling in which the collecting is done by the local authority, but the businesses pay for the credits. At the moment, we believe that to be a more cost-efficient and economical system. We continue to focus on that model, although it might need to be tweaked to deal with some of the volatility of prices.

The third question was about what we can do to reach out to other countries. That is a two-way street. Sometimes, it is a matter of us learning from other countries. As the hon. Member for Aberavon knows, Denmark leads us by a long way on this. On Friday, the Danish Environment Minister told me at the Environment Council that the Danes had got their landfilling down to 1.3%. I can hardly believe that to be true, but if it is, we have an enormous amount to learn from Denmark—that is an impressive figure. I was just congratulating Hampshire on 7%, but 1.3% is really going some. As the hon. Member for Stockton North pointed out, however, other member states—often those that have joined the European Union relatively recently—have landfill rates up at the 70% or 80% mark. Clearly, things can be done to share best practice with those states.

To conclude, the areas that we probably want to focus on include food waste—an issue on which the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the shadow Secretary of State, has led a great deal. It is becoming more and more urgent for the public. People care more about food waste, and the days, 10 years ago, when people complained about slop buckets are going: people feel a moral obligation to deal with food waste, and councils that offer separate food waste collection are popular. We need to get better at that.

As far as the second thing that we need to focus on is concerned, we can take some satisfaction in where we have got to: Britain has taken household recycling rates from 11% to 45% since 2000. Getting to the point where we are recycling almost half our waste is relatively impressive. It is striking how attitudes are changing through all generations; people seem to be more comfortable and at ease with recycling.

Finally, we need to be practical. On Thursday, I was talking to the Dutch Government about something called the North sea resource roundabout, which is a new, voluntary initiative of the sort that we should be pursuing more—it is not the EU regulating, but a voluntary approach.

We have fantastic agreements going with Holland on moving bottom ash from Britain to Holland, where there is a much more sophisticated recycling process to extract metals, and on moving compost from Holland. The Dutch have a lot of manure coming out of their animals, but do not have much use for it, so we are moving it to Northumberland, where we can process it into fertiliser. Finally, we are also working with Flanders on the issue of chemicals in plastics.

In every case, concrete issues of shipping routes, costs, definition of waste—how waste is defined affects whether we are allowed to transport it across international bodies—and the way in which waste is counted are involved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke pointed out, how waste is counted affects whether people are incentivised to collect bottom ash.

If we can get such things right, we will see a revolutionary change moving towards what we want: a natural capital approach, making sure that things that are not counted, that the market does not recognise, are properly captured—the value in not only the primary products, but the secondary products coming out of the bottom of incineration. We will then protect our environment for the future and create an economy that is sustainable, low carbon, efficient and impervious to shocks from the global volatility of commodity prices. Such an economy will achieve what we want, which is a more prosperous and a more environmentally friendly future.

Question put and agreed to.

Flood Insurance for Businesses

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

The floods that hit the north of England over the Christmas period brought untold misery and suffering to a record number of people. In the Calder Valley, 2,700 homes and 1,635 businesses were flooded. In addition, four schools were affected, two of which are likely to remain closed for the foreseeable future, several bridges were destroyed and the total repair bill for damaged infrastructure currently stands at £32 million.

The Government’s response so far has been most welcome. A £12 million package for households and businesses was made available within days of the flooding to help with the initial incidental costs. Since then, we have seen £5.5 million for the rebuilding of Elland bridge and, most recently, funding to repair and improve flood defences in the village of Mytholmroyd, which was particularly badly affected.

As welcome as the Government response has been to date, there is still far more to do. The communities in my constituency will need a great deal of support over the coming months and years as they get back on their feet.

The Environment Agency is due to complete the long-awaited flood prevention modelling work for the length of the Calder Valley in October. Although improved flood defences and upland management schemes cannot guarantee full protection in the future, there is an urgent need to move ahead with such projects. In addition to flood prevention work and the cost of repairing the damaged infrastructure, there is also the need to work with businesses to ensure that they are able to recover. An essential part of that is ensuring that small businesses are able to access flood insurance.

In response to a recent written question on this issue, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said:

“While we recognise the difficult challenges that some small businesses could face in accessing commercial flood insurance in areas of high flood risk, we are not currently aware of evidence that there is a systemic problem. Therefore, we have committed to work with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and other interested parties to monitor the insurance market for small businesses. We are keen to work across government, and with a range of business interests, to better understand the nature and extent of any problem that might exist”.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my former Education Committee comrade for securing this debate and for giving way. This afternoon, I met Alan Smith, the leader of Allerdale council, to hear of the problems in his area and his worries for small and large businesses. Of concern is the fact that excesses of several tens of thousands of pounds are needed in order to secure insurance. What specific role should the Government have in developing some form of Flood Re type scheme for businesses, perhaps with some of that underwriting money that we have for domestic issues?

[Craig Whittaker]

I will come on to what I want the Government to do a little later, but I will also explain what is currently taking place. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the excesses for small and medium-sized businesses are phenomenally unaffordable, as are some of the premiums on offer.

In addition to the written question that I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister recently stated that he was looking very carefully at this issue and that, although some small businesses are highlighting concerns, the insurance companies, via the Association of British Insurers, state that they would not turn down any small business for flood insurance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have not ruled out an application to the EU solidarity fund. We have until the end of February to apply. We need to find out the total cost of the floods before a potential application is made. Our priority has been to make sure we get funding to affected homes and businesses as soon as possible. In fact, for the floods that took place on 26 December, funding was with local authorities on 29 December. Our priority has been making sure we make £200 million available to fix the damage and help communities to get back on their feet.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The devastating floods across the country are extremely well documented, as are the knock-on effects of the Government’s decision to postpone or cancel capital schemes—an estimated cost of £5 billion. Communities, families, individuals and businesses have suffered ruinous consequences. It is imperative that the Government do everything possible to maximise resources from all areas. The Secretary of State mentioned the EU solidarity fund. Time is running out, with only three or four weeks left for an application in relation to Cumbria. Will she just get on with the job and do it now, please?

Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 General Committees

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the very first time, Mr Streeter, and to have the opportunity to share my thoughts on the regulations, which appear to lack any element of controversy, although that, of course, does not minimise their significance. The Minister spoke of packaging as important for both its planned use and its recycling value, but the management and disposal of packaging waste and batteries can result, among other things, in the production of greenhouse gases and, if not handled correctly and effectively, further environmental consequences through the impact of landfill.

I agree that those greater considerations are often not at the forefront of the minds of consumers or indeed producers—or at least not as often as they should be, especially if we are to meet legally binding reuse and recycling targets of 65% by 2025 and 75% by 2030. EU analysis of recent trends suggests that further progress on resource efficiency is possible and that that might bring major economic, environmental and social benefits, which the Minister talked about. Stronger measures to close the loop and create a circular economy by transforming waste into a resource are an essential part of the necessary increases in resource efficiency.

As the Government’s impact assessment notes, without intervention, recycling levels would be insufficient. Placing some—only some—of the cost burden in the hands of packaging handlers and producers, as well as battery producers, helps to focus their minds on cost, and that is mitigating some of the environmental impacts to bring about a more efficient outcome. That all builds into the broader picture of employing economic incentives to entice producers into putting greener products on the market while supporting recovery and recycling schemes for their packaging, batteries and so on.

It is worth noting, however, that the stated aim of the regulations is to reduce the burden of producer responsibility obligations on businesses. The Government’s impact assessment notes that the current regime imposes costs on businesses that could be reduced without affecting its overall impact. I am clear that any reduction in burden for businesses must be achieved by improving the effectiveness of the schemes and must not come at the expense of the success of the new regulations. With that in mind, I welcome the Minister’s outlining of what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the removal of the requirement for operational plans to be submitted—a standard indication of best practice in many sectors—neither weakens the regulator’s role in ensuring that producers meet their obligations, nor undermines its role in monitoring performance.

Operational plans have traditionally been employed as a mechanism to ensure that schemes consider how they will meet a set of identified obligations and ultimately provide a framework within which regulators can monitor performance. Will the Minister therefore explain in a little more detail how regulators will be expected to monitor performance in the absence of operational plans? Will he also provide further details on future reporting standards in the absence of operational plans, such as the need for accurate data reporting and transparency? I know that he alluded to that briefly in his speech.

We are aware of the huge budget cuts suffered by the Department and the additional strain that the recent disastrous floods have placed on resources, but there is a cost associated with the changes made by the regulations. Will the Minister explain what additional funding the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and National Resources Wales will receive when they become the appropriate authorities responsible for granting approval for such schemes, rather than the Secretary of State? Let us not forget that budgets are already stretched across the Department and its various agencies, and that there are now hundreds of people fewer to do the work than before, which requires more from those people who remain in post.

None the less, the streamlining of the approval process across Great Britain and Northern Ireland is to be welcomed, especially because companies now will not have to apply for approval in both territories. However, easing the regulatory burden in this manner still causes potential headaches. With the creation of several appropriate authorities, the need for cross-border consistency is paramount if the regulations are to be successful in balancing the cutting of red tape against achieving improved outcomes. Will the Minister give us further particulars of the steps that are being taken to ensure that we achieve that consistency?

To refer back to the Government’s impact assessment again, doing away with the requirement for operational plans in the packaging sector is estimated to produce a saving of some £5 million over 10 years. The saving in the batteries industry alone, once requirements for operational plans and annual approval are removed, is put at around £300,000 over the same period. These are not insignificant savings and they are to be welcomed if they can drive higher rates of recycling and lower levels of waste while encouraging more companies to take a socially responsible approach. However, we must ensure that the consequences of any such actions, intended or otherwise, are properly considered before a decision is made so that we prevent progress towards meeting targets from being undermined. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

That is a deep and important question. It goes back all the way to the design of the scheme in the mid-1990s, when the decision was made to create a market-based system rather than a compulsory one. Our view is that we have the right balance at the moment between recycling rates and costs. It would put a huge burden on businesses and the public purse if we were to adopt a compulsory system, but I would be comfortable about sitting down with the hon. Gentleman outside this room and having a more fundamental discussion about the market-based system.

We are, however, here to talk about not the market-based system itself, but issues such as operational plans and how they are implemented. Moving on to the challenges rightly made by the hon. Member for Stockton North, I welcome the fact that he is taking on board three out of four of the changes: having a simple, single port of call; ensuring that the system is delegated down to the appropriate level within the company; and ensuring that the change of approving body goes through.

On the removal of operational plans, the central question is what we are trying to achieve. Obviously, we are trying to drive up our packaging recycling rates. We have moved away from an operational plan system to a compliance system because, unfortunately, although the operational plans sounded good in theory, we discovered that people were not reading or updating them, and they were not a very useful tool for monitoring how people did packaging recycling. Ultimately, 80% of the operational plans did not represent useful information for achieving what we want—to increase the packaging recycling rate.

We believe that moving to a compliance system will allow the Environment Agency to take a more risk-based approach and will, above all, allow it to use more intelligently the market system that I have just been debating with the hon. Member for Coventry North West so that it can examine the data provided and the number of PRNs being traded, and ensure that we are achieving targets as they are set. We have heard a lot about that, for example in relation to aluminium this year. We do not believe that the operational plans are the correct way to achieve that.

That brings me to the challenge from the hon. Member for Coventry North West about how we will check that the system is working. There are two ways to do so. First, through my colleagues at DEFRA, who proposed the regulations and are working closely with the industry. The second point is that, to be honest, those in the industry with which we are working, from the packaging industry through to Tesco, are not quiet lambs who will go gently into a system that they believe to be bureaucratic, wasteful and not effective at achieving targets. One reason why we have introduced the changes is that we have had a lot of active, energised conversations with the industry over 10 or 15 years. I would expect those people to keep pushing hard. If they do not feel that they are achieving the savings that they want and the recycling rates that we need, they will come back to us in a tough way.

[Alex Cunningham]

Before the Minister concludes, I also asked questions about the how the management of the scheme by the new responsible body will be resourced and the consistency of implementation across the nation.

[Rory Stewart]

Those are two separate questions. Consistent implementation across the nations will be key, because what we are doing with the one-stop shop is to ensure that if England signs off on something, Scotland is prepared to accept that standard. To achieve that, we must ensure that our agencies work closely together, and we are working closely with the devolved Administrations.

The hon. Gentleman’s first point was about ensuring that the agencies are properly resourced when signing off on PRNs. Our current assessment is that they are properly resourced, and that the agencies are the right body to carry out that role. We have had long conversations with the agencies about taking that forward. However, I absolutely take note of that point, and we need to watch the situation carefully over the next three to five years to ensure that the job is being done properly.

We have had a distinguished turn-out of Committee members from both sides of the House, whom I thank for coming along. I am grateful for Members’ comments and questions, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Flooding

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We have heard already that David Rooke, deputy chief executive of the Environment Agency, recently called for a “complete rethink” in our approach to flooding. I could not agree more. More than an entire month’s rainfall fell in a single day on one Saturday in early December, resulting in many of the main rivers across Cumbria exceeding their highest levels ever recorded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, the Government appear to have been caught short by the changing weather.

The extensive flooding that followed at the end of December and into the new year across Cumbria as well as in Lancashire, Yorkshire, north-east England and throughout much of Scotland confirmed that building higher walls will not, on its own, provide the protection that our towns and cities need. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people in the north of the country and in Scotland who have seen with their own eyes the evidence that the Government have not done enough. We should not overlook how sick they are of the Government’s excuses. Let us not forget that areas of Cumbria assessed as having a one-in-100 years’ chance of such flooding have experienced these events three times in the past decade.

Similarly, people are tired of the frantic efforts to persuade the public that spending is greater now than it was under the previous coalition and Labour Governments that went before them. As my hon friend highlighted, the Government are constantly chirping about their £2.3 billion of capital spending over six years, but their attempts to defend their record over the previous Parliament will not wash. Analysis from the National Audit Office has confirmed that, between 2010 and 2011 and 2013 and 2014, capital funding fell by 18% in cash terms. Were it not for the emergency funding after the floods hit, total funding would have fallen by 10% in real terms during the previous Parliament.

In 2007, the Labour Government announced an ambitious target of £800 million per year in flood defence spending by 2011, and spending actually increased by 27% between 2007 and 2008 and 2009 and 2010, reaching £633 million, with £766 million budgeted for in 2010-11. What was the Prime Minister’s first action on flood defences when he came to power in 2010? Yes, he handed out a £96 million cut in the budget, leaving the Government lagging behind thereafter and struggling to keep pace. According to the House of Commons Library, subsequent years’ spending was hundreds of millions below what the Environment Agency said it needed, even when the extra millions in response to the tragic floods in Somerset are considered. The Secretary of State said earlier that others have contributed to make up the difference. I ask the Minister who has made these contributions and how much have they contributed to the overall budget.

While money was no object for the Prime Minister a couple of years ago, it does seem to be an object now. As we have heard from hon. Friends, on three separate occasions today he refused to confirm that he will fund the full Leeds flood defence scheme. The hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) told us that that project had been over-engineered, but we still need action, and we need it now. The Prime Minister has no excuse for the failure to act on the upgrading of the Foss barrier several years ago, yet he seemed pleased with himself today when he said that the work is now being tendered—little consolation for those who saw the waters invade their homes.

The Government are even less enthusiastic about revealing precisely how much of the capital spending is simply maintaining existing flood defences at their current level without providing increased protection. As the Committee on Climate Change has identified and the events of recent weeks have confirmed, the impacts of a changing climate will see defences that might otherwise provide protection against a one-in-100-year flood provide a much lower level of protection, risking their being overtopped more frequently.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken on a number of different issues. There has been much praise for volunteers, local authority workers, the military, and the Environment Agency. A great example came from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who talked about the pop-up charity shop providing goods but also raising cash for victims. All this is Britain at its best.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) talked about the small communities affected, because many of them feel abandoned. I am looking forward to my meeting with the Minister, I believe next week, to talk about the proposals to help smaller communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) talked about the River Aire and spoke of businesses ruined. Sometimes we forget that jobs are lost as a direct result of these things, with machinery ruined and insurance protection not really in existence.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) spoke of a field under flood where planning permission has already been granted for more housing development. I wonder what mitigation is in place for the houses that are going to be built there and on the other floodplains where housing has permission to be built. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) also spoke about floodplain development, as well as insurance, which was covered by other Members.

I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) talk about the threat to health services in Cumbria—we know how remote places there can be. He also mentioned the potential damage to the oncoming tourist season. It is not just people’s holidays that are going to be lost, but people’s livelihoods as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) referred to Members saying how great the response had been, and it was, but the spending on that response has been counted as maintenance whereas in fact it was repairing damage.

As I argued in the House during the debate on the Housing and Planning Bill only yesterday, we need measures aimed at prevention as well as at defence. The havoc and devastation that have engulfed vast swathes of the northern regions is testament to that, underlining the need for in-built resilience when new developments are planned and constructed. The Minister for Housing and Planning said that sufficient legislation is in place, yet we continue to see planning permissions for floodplain development and no real requirement on developers to build into their schemes the measures needed in the immediate and longer term.

The commitment from the Secretary of State to revisit the modelling used by the Environment Agency and to review its fitness for purpose off the back of these repeated unprecedented weather events, as well as to a national flood resilience review that will update worst-case-scenario planning, is welcome, if not overdue. What are the timescales for this review? When we can we expect some outcomes and some news?

[Elizabeth Truss]

This summer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Well, this summer is better than next year.

I offer this challenge: what happened to the innovative thinking of the previous Labour Government who left office in 2010 and who had accepted the recommendations of the Pitt review that would have seen much greater resilience of this kind? Let us take, for instance, the catchment management plans within the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Despite giving the Environment Agency responsibility for building an understanding of current and future flooding risk, and informing policies for managing this risk within the catchment area, those plans were axed post-2010 as the agency’s funding was cut. The Secretary of State spoke about this, and I hope the Minister will tell us a little more. What thought has been given to changing the incentives for farmers and landowners in river catchment areas, particularly in the upper reaches of river catchments, which play a key role in determining flood risk?

I need to wind up now. It is time to recognise that our rivers, streams and watercourses are natural infrastructure assets, and the Treasury and others have to treat them in the same way as motorways, trunk roads and other infrastructure if we are going to build resilience into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was a distinguished floods Minister and is right in what he says. We need to look also at upstream mitigation, which means the planting of trees, the restoration of poached soils, and examining peat bogs and river movement. This is not only about hard defences, and the work that we will be doing over the next few months will focus exactly on those natural measures.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The devastation of the communities in Keswick, Carlisle and Cockermouth hit by the floods was clear for all to see, but it does not tell the full story. I spent part of my visit to Cumbria meeting people in smaller communities, including Barepot and Hall Park View, near Workington, as well as Flimby and Dearham. Many people were just getting on with the job of clearing up, but they told me that they felt abandoned yet again, with no hope of any schemes to protect their homes, even though most of these schemes would be small and inexpensive. What plans does the Minister have to pay more attention to smaller communities also devastated by floods and to commit to the small schemes, which could make a big difference?

[Rory Stewart]

First, I pay tribute to the shadow Minister for his visit, which was very much appreciated. It is true that many people feel that the media attention has been on Carlisle and that the number of small villages affected have been ignored. As he says, we can see many communities like that across Cumbria and they will be having a horrifying time. They will have a very difficult winter. We are working to bundle schemes together. One particular example, which I would be very happy to discuss with him, is what is happening at Stockdalewath, where we have an upstream alleviation programme for a small hamlet. We need to extend that to other areas, too.

Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall for a third time this week, and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I apologise for leaving the room; my cough got the better of me.

I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) yet again; I had expected to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) back to his place after a challenging few days in his home county of Cumbria, devastated by recent floods. I visited on Monday to see what the Cumbrian people were facing. Although we will continue to challenge the Government on their response to and funding for flooding, we will also work with them in the best interests of the affected communities.

The issues that have been raised today are of considerable importance to our natural environment and the biodiversity it supports. That is not to mention the public interest in these issues, with more than 60,000 people responding to the Woodland Trust’s Enough is Enough campaign to urge the Prime Minister to shore up protection for ancient woodland.

Before I offer my thoughts, I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. Members for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) on securing the debate and on giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters fully. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) for his summary of the debate and for reminding me yet again of my Scottish heritage. He remarked that this has been a consensual debate, and that is not going to change in the next 10 minutes.

Several Members eloquently told us of their favourite, treasured woodlands and of the need to save them. I think I will be looking at the Hansard record of our debate and planning my walking itinerary for the next two or three years, having been provided with such excellent suggestions. However, the hon. Member for Falkirk reminded me of the ancient woodlands and glens not so far from where I spent my childhood, so perhaps that will be well up the list of the places on my tour.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman would be very welcome to visit some of our woods in the Chilterns, but he needs to hurry. If the construction of HS2 starts as planned in 2017, they will not be there much longer.

[Alex Cunningham]

Given that I return to the homeland regularly, I will perhaps need to take up the right hon. Lady’s invitation a bit earlier than I might have planned.

The hon. Member for Taunton Deane tempted me into a false sense of relaxation. That was not because her speech was 28 minutes long, but because she took us on that walk through the wood to Enid Blyton’s faraway tree. Then, of course, she brought me back to reality very quickly. Given that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee just weeks ago that

“ancient woodland, as a category, is not a protected category”,

today’s debate could not be more timely. This is the second debate in two days in which we will reach consensus—perhaps because we are working off some of the same briefing notes.

That ancient woodland is not a statutory designation in law sets it apart from many other precious habitats, and means that it is liable to suffer from a lack of protection. The hon. Member for Falkirk quoted paragraph 118 of the national planning policy framework, and it is worth quoting it again, because it actually allows for the loss or destruction, in England, of ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees in cases where

“the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”—

a sad business.

It is important to be clear from the outset that if we lose the ancient woodlands we have left, they are gone forever, as others have said. Our varied climate and geology have gifted us a diversity of ancient woodland forms, whose composition is a product of environmental conditions and historical management that will simply not occur again. Our ancient woodlands cannot, therefore, by definition, be recreated.

As we have heard, the Woodland Trust has identified that, as a result of the planning loophole I mentioned, hundreds of ancient trees and woods are being lost or threatened in the planning system every year. To put that into context, more than 40 ancient woods have suffered loss or damage from development since the framework was introduced just three years ago, in March 2012. As others have mentioned, the Woodland Trust is dealing with more than 600 ancient woods that are under threat. That is the highest number in the trust’s history, and it is increasing all the time.

The situation is not markedly better elsewhere in the UK. Scottish policy, for instance, recognises only somewhat loosely that the value of ancient woods should be considered in planning decisions, while Welsh policy affirms that ancient woods should be protected from development that would result in significant damage.

It is interesting to note that the Minister with responsibility for forests in the previous coalition Administration revealed in an answer to a parliamentary question that the Government do not collect data about the loss of trees and woods. A complete and precise picture of the scale of losses in any given year is therefore impossible, and the task of protection is made markedly more complicated. With areas of ancient woodland having originally been mapped to act as a proxy for areas of high biodiversity, rather than for their inherent value, it is difficult to conclusively identify and value ancient woodland. Although the modest protections currently available are undoubtedly well-intentioned, such inherent difficulties in conclusively identifying and valuing ancient woodlands make those safeguards almost impossible to implement coherently.

That highlights an important point. Although organisations such as the Woodland Trust are well attuned to up-to-date threats and to the latest developments, the Government are, sadly, lagging behind. Not only is there no central database of ancient woodlands, but no recent analysis has been undertaken of the amount of ancient woodland lost year on year to development, infrastructure projects and other causes, such as unapproved felling.

I therefore hope to hear the Minister confirm that his Department has a plan to take immediate steps to rectify these information gaps. I would be interested to hear what consideration he has given to compiling such figures—possibly as part of his Department’s 25-year plan. Addressing that information gap is of central importance if we are to protect our ancient woodlands and the rich biodiversity they support, not to mention the valuable environmental and social wellbeing they provide.

On that point, it is worth while highlighting the distinctive communities of plants and animals that populate many ancient woodlands, some of which, such as the lichen in some ancient Scottish pinewoods, are of international importance. At the same time, the soils in many ancient woodlands are relatively undisturbed and may preserve distinct species communities and natural ecological processes, such as decomposition and nutrient cycling, all of which it is important to protect.

For reasons such as those, the Communities and Local Government Committee called 12 months ago for ancient woodland to be awarded the same protection as designated heritage assets in the built environment. That proposal would have seen the national planning policy framework amended to require any loss of ancient woodland to be wholly exceptional. The Committee also called for work to be undertaken to increase the number of ancient woodlands with statutory designations, such as site of special scientific interest designation, to further boost the protection of these important habitats. However, in response to the Committee’s report, the Government rejected any change to the framework’s wording, giving the opinion that the protections already in place for ancient woodlands under the framework are strong and make it clear that development should be avoided in such areas.

When the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he suggested that “an enormous amount” of ancient woodland in the UK is

“already protected within our national parks and within AONBs”,

with much covered by Natura sites under European legislation and even more falling under regulations that protect sites of special scientific interest. However, in response to a parliamentary question just last month, he confirmed that evaluations from Natural England estimated that only 15% of ancient woodland is located in national parks, and 30% in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Despite statutory designation offering the strongest legal protection from loss and deterioration in condition, only 20% of ancient woods in the UK are designated as sites of special scientific interest. In addition, there is no equivalent for woods deemed to be culturally important, potentially leaving sites with high historic—but low ecological—value with less protection. Furthermore, within national parks, only 29% of woodland has site of special scientific interest status, although even that compares favourably with the 13% of woodland in areas of outstanding natural beauty that is similarly designated.

With those figures in mind, I hope that the Minister will look again at the Communities and Local Government Committee recommendation to designate more ancient woodlands as sites of special scientific interest and that he will support such action to strengthen the legal protection of ancient woodland. Doing so is important, not least because the evidence highlights that even those ancient woodlands located in a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty are not wholly protected against the threat of being impacted by, or lost to, development.

To take HS2 as an example—and we have heard plenty about it today—phase 1 of that significant project, as it is currently planned, directly threatens 39 ancient woods, with a further 23 at risk of secondary effects such as disturbance, noise and pollution, including woods within the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. We might perhaps also consider the hydroelectric scheme proposed at Fairy Glen in north Wales, which threatens ancient woodland within Snowdonia national park. The Cairngorms national park local development plan expressly backs potential development sites that could cause damage to ancient woodland, including at An Camas Mòr, Carrbridge and Nethy Bridge. Indeed, I understand the installation of a micro-hydroelectric turbine within the Cairngorms, for which approval was granted in 2014, will damage ancient woodland, while neither Snowdonia national park authority nor Natural Resources Wales highlighted concerns about the impact on ancient woodland of the Fairy Glen scheme.

As I mentioned at the outset, the risk of allowing such damage is that if we lose the ancient woodlands that we have left they are gone forever. They cannot be replaced. However, that is not to say that we cannot do more to protect vulnerable ancient woodlands and wildlife by creating new woodland and other habitats around the remaining fragments of ancient woodland, thereby shielding them from the effects of neighbouring land use. Members have already mentioned that small ancient woods are particularly vulnerable to impacts from surrounding land uses—chemical pollutants from development, agriculture and the like. Research shows us that fertiliser from cropland can alter the soil chemistry, plant species presence and plant growth as much as 100 metres into an adjacent ancient wood. I would be interested to hear what thought the Minister has given to the potential for utilising such buffer zones around ancient woodlands to help mitigate any such damage, and whether his Department intends to look into that option further to determine its viability.

A number of organisations do important work in restoring, managing and conserving ancient woodland to help it survive, but that work will ultimately prove futile while those habitats remain insufficiently protected in the planning system. I am sure that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government were appropriately considered, but I would welcome hearing from the Minister what steps the Government are willing to take so that the loss of ancient woodland becomes wholly exceptional. In the light of this week’s events, we should not forget that the loss of tree and plant coverage, along with changes in land use in rural and urban areas, has been a significant contributing factor in the increased risk of flooding, particularly in rural areas.

I know that I am asking the Minister to do more with fewer resources, particularly after the comprehensive spending review made further huge cuts to DEFRA’s budgets, but I would be pleased to hear that his Department will work alongside DCLG colleagues to bolster the protection available to ancient woodland as part of the planning framework and ensure that planning departments are required to protect existing woodland while working with developers to include trees as part of sustainable urban drainage proposals.

Exotic Pets Trade

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) on opening this important debate. With the Government announcing the review of all animal licensing to take place next year, this debate is certainly timely. We have heard some interesting points, and I hope to add a little value to the debate, in which consensus has certainly broken out.

The hon. Gentleman made a strong and persuasive case that I am sure will go some way to convincing the Minister that more can, should and must be done to regulate the sale and keeping of exotic pets here in the UK. Like others, I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the Pet Animals Act 1951 will be included in the review, to bring the legislation into the 21st century.

As other Members have rightly highlighted, there is a growing trade in exotic animals, with traders knowing little, and buyers even less. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) told of the huge range of exotic pets on sale in south Yorkshire, where shopkeepers have no knowledge of or information about them. That example, in itself, surely makes the case for change. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) mentioned a number of horror stories. He made me jealous when he told us he had worked with Brigitte Bardot, but even she could not change things as far as legislation in this area is concerned. I am sure the Minister agrees that we do not need any more glamour to achieve change.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) talked about the pressures that can be put on families through such things as “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”, which can drive the demand for a particular species without people thinking about the animal’s needs. Children would be horrified if they realised that the pet that they are keeping is suffering, when actually, it is an illustration of their heroes. It is important that children understand a little more about that.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said that the best way to have an interest in an exotic animal was by sponsoring one in a sanctuary. She also raised the issue of specialist vets not being available to deal with such animals when they become ill.

Regrettably, although the keeping of dangerous wild animals as pets is regulated by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and the selling by pet shops of exotic animals as pets is regulated by the Pet Animals Act 1951, there are no detailed controls on the keeping of non-dangerous exotic animals as pets. Partially as a result of that regulatory uncertainty, the range of exotic animals and birds being kept as pets has expanded substantially in recent years, with increasing numbers of people choosing to buy lesser known species that are deemed more desirable, and maybe even more fashionable, which is a point that was raised earlier. Unfortunately, from a welfare perspective at least, that includes some species that are simply unsuitable for that purpose.

Reptiles are a case in point. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk told us of the Born Free and Blue Cross report, “One Click Away”, which suggested that up to 7 million reptiles and amphibians are now being kept in the UK. We also heard of a sample studied by Born Free and Blue Cross, which discovered at least 53 different species of reptile, along with 37 types of exotic bird, 28 types of exotic mammal and seven types of amphibians advertised for sale over a three-month period and across several general selling websites.

Often, however, the decisions by the buyers are made on the hoof, perhaps at the behest of a child, with little consideration for the long-term implications of owning an exotic pet for which the novelty can soon wear off. At a recent Blue Cross event, I raised the need for education, which again, was raised my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. I was talking about the need for children to understand in school what owning an exotic pet actually means. Children really do care and I think that if they understood a little more, perhaps the demand for exotic pets would be that little bit lower.

With many of these species having not undergone the same process of domestication as more familiar companion animals, such as dogs and cats, meeting their highly specialised welfare needs in a domestic environment can be very difficult. That is an important point. Domesticated livestock and companion animals are fundamentally different from their wild predecessors. The welfare needs of many exotic animals are extremely complicated. They often have specific requirements in terms of space, diet and environment, and very often those are difficult and expensive to meet within a home environment. The same holds true for the complex social, physical and behavioural needs of many exotic animals.

We have heard this morning that the unfortunate result is that many such impulse purchases end up being kept in poor conditions, contrary to the duties imposed by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on owners to provide for an animal’s basic needs. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how those regulations can be better enforced.

It is important to recognise that, when an exotic animal’s captive environment is unsuitable, a host of serious health problems can result, and we have heard many examples of those this morning. The 7 million reptiles that I mentioned just a moment ago, for instance, are known to suffer from a range of illnesses in captivity, including rickets, metabolic bone disease and digestive problems. With the advent—not to mention the rapid growth—of online selling, the internet has quickly become a hive of activity through which breeders, dealers and traders alike can advertise and sell a staggering array of pet animals with consummate ease.

Sadly, the ease of availability opens the door to many inexperienced owners, who can purchase exotic animals without being aware of their specific needs. That, ultimately, can feed into a cycle of maltreatment, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to ensure that this marketplace is properly and thoroughly regulated to minimise any such instances.

I am, indeed, aware that the Government have started to look at that area and have endorsed the Pet Advertising Advisory Group standards for online adverts. That move is certainly to be welcomed and represents an important step. There has been some success in improving online advertising standards among those signing up to the voluntary standards. However, critically, those standards are wholly voluntary and markedly less success has been had with the sites that are not signing up. Furthermore, compliance is, as a result, difficult to enforce.

The “One Click Away” report, which I referred to, illustrates that perfectly. By looking at a sample of almost 1,800 online classified adverts, animals considered particularly vulnerable to welfare problems in captivity, such as chameleons and iguanas, were found advertised for sale. The investigation also found that unsuitable animals, including potentially dangerous ones, were widely available for sale to the general public.

Worryingly, even primates featured on the list of species encountered. Between January 2008 and October 2012, monitoring by Born Free found 57 species of exotic mammals for sale, including 11 species of primates. The “One Click Away” report found 21 adverts selling primates, and I want to touch on that specific issue. Several animal welfare organisations are particularly concerned about that matter, and I share those worries. The RSPCA, for instance, has voiced its belief that primates are never suitable pets and tend to suffer disproportionately in a domestic environment. Blue Cross and Born Free would also support a ban on their keeping as pets.

Let us not forget that primates are highly intelligent mammals, with a range of complex needs. Many demonstrate complex language skills, use tools, show advanced learning, numerical ability and planning, as well as performing tactical social interactions. Some are also capable of human-like emotion, which adds another sensitive dimension to those considerations. However, that enhanced capacity for intelligence and awareness means that primates are also more disposed to suffer in captivity than many other animals. To maintain high welfare standards, both physical and psychological health must be safeguarded, entailing being kept in social groups in specially designed indoor and outdoor facilities, yet I understand that the RSPCA commonly finds primates kept as pets in birdcages, on their own, in people’s living rooms. Owners, worryingly, lack even the basic knowledge and understanding of the species that they own. Clearly, that can have serious welfare implications and can lead to such conditions as bone diseases and diabetes, not to mention psychological symptoms such as self-mutilation, depression and hair plucking.

Speakers this morning have given the Minister much to think about, and I look forward to his explaining to us how we can achieve higher standards and better enforcement.

Lead Shot Ammunition

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Westminster Hall

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

May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and also to the fact that I am probably the only Member who has been shot by a lead cartridge? It was about 35 years ago and I still carry 20 lead pellets in my left knee as testimony to that—colleagues will judge whether that has affected my physical state or indeed my mental state.

This is not a new discussion. When I was chairman of the shoot summit nearly 10 years ago we discussed it and came to the view 10:1 that the evidence was lacking—to some extent it is still lacking—that the risk of lead was either significant or unmanageable, or that the alternatives, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), posed less of a risk. That was in the context of both food consumption and environmental concerns. That fell into the hands of the Lead Ammunition Group, which was set up by DEFRA.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

If toxicity is not a problem, why does the Food Standards Agency advise frequent eaters of lead-shot game to reduce their consumption for health reasons?

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have not yet said, and I am not sure that I will say, that there is no toxicity issue at all. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman will hear me and other colleagues out, he may get the answer he requires.

The Lead Ammunition Group was set up to come to a unanimous view on steps forward for the Secretary of State. However, it has failed to do that. Nearly half of its members resigned, which meant that its final report was submitted without input from those valuable sources. The report, which was based on evidence that was and remains disputed, reached conclusions outside the terms of reference set by the Secretary of State in the first place. Therefore, when coming to conclusions about what all of this means, I hope that the Minister will recognise that, for whatever reason, the Lead Ammunition Group has failed in its objectives.

Food concerns were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). The advice given so far does not need any alteration. That is key, because if we look at it in the context of other food scares and consumption habits, there is no evidence to suggest that the danger posed by lead is any greater than that of any other food substance that we might arguably eat to excess. That is the point: we can point to any number of foodstuffs and say, “If you ate this foodstuff to excess, you might come across a health problem.” The advice given is quite contextualised, which has not been the case in the debate.

The contribution I want to make to the debate is to give a word of caution about the Lead Ammunition Group’s findings. They are not definitive; they are disputed and the evidence it relied on is hotly debated. Finally, if the problem was as great as one or two Members suggest, it would have emerged as a health scare long before now. We therefore need to treat what we are hearing with caution, assuming that it is evidence. It is nothing new.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing the debate on this important matter. It not only relates to the health of wildlife and the environment, but has ongoing ramifications for humans if it is not dealt with. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—it is one of my favourite parts of my homeland and I very much enjoy spending time there—for his comprehensive summary of the debate so far.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was, of course, right to mention our long-standing recognition of lead’s toxicity and to highlight the plethora of bodies that have issued warnings on this matter. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s assessment of that advice in due course. Unlike other trace metals, lead plays no physiological function in the human body. Instead, it acts as a neurotoxin. Even at low levels of exposure, the damage that lead triggers can be significant: impairment of the developing brain and nervous system, increased incidence of hypertension and stroke, and weakening of the immune system. Worryingly, some of these impacts appear to be irreversible.

We have heard some emotive points this afternoon from all parts of the House. Indeed, I was fascinated to hear my hon. Friend give the etymology of “crazy as a painter”—the origin was lost on me before now—and anecdotal explanations for the fall of the Roman empire. The risks from lead poisoning must be taken seriously and the importance of a strong evidence base in assessing them cannot be overstated. The evidence is clear that there is no safe level of exposure, which is why the World Health Organisation has been clear that all forms of lead are toxic, and food safety agencies across Europe have highlighted the risk to health of eating game shot with lead ammunition.

Under food regulations, there are limits on the amount of lead in lamb, pork, beef and other products, but they do not apply to game. Is it not time to bring it into line? Lead is without doubt one of the best-studied contaminants in the world and there is overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating its toxicity to multiple physiological systems in humans and other vertebrate animals.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The hon. Gentleman said that there is no safe level of tolerance for lead, but we have heard this afternoon that lead is present in many foods that we all consume, and in alcohol and beer, so clearly there must be some level of tolerance or we would all be dropping down in the streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Just because there is a level of tolerance does not mean that it is not dangerous. Somebody may smoke over a lifetime and then suffer deterioration or a specific condition, and that can apply in this case too.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified inorganic lead as being “probably carcinogenic to humans”, while no safe blood lead level in children has been identified below which negative health effects cannot be detected. In March 2013, a group of 31 eminent scientists signed a consensus statement on the health risks from lead-based ammunition in the environment. Based on “overwhelming evidence” and “convincing data”, and alongside the availability and suitability of non-lead alternatives, they recommended the eventual elimination of lead-based ammunition and its replacement with non-toxic alternatives.

Just last month, the Oxford Lead Symposium published research further confirming what we already broadly knew about lead and the risks to humans, wildlife and the natural environment. The Lead Ammunition Group, which the Government set up, submitted its draft report this summer and I would welcome confirmation from the Minister of the date this evidence was received along with a timeframe for the release of its findings and recommendations.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Can the hon. Gentleman point to any evidence of any premature deaths caused by lead poisoning? Indeed, on the contrary; I have known many people who have eaten game regularly and lived to a ripe old age.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman makes a great point: I cannot provide that particular piece of evidence, but what I am told by health organisations and others is that ingestion of lead over a period can be quite dangerous. As others have said, as a responsible society that recognises the inherent dangers, we have already taken action and regulated to cut lead from petrol, paint and water pipes, so most exposure to lead in the general population now comes from diet. However, despite the evidence and our previous moves to regulate other sources of exposure, we have not yet completely banned the use of lead by shooters. Instead, we have stopped short, although in response to the UK’s obligations under the African-Eurasian migratory waterbird agreement to phase out the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands, it has been illegal to hunt certain wildfowl over certain wetlands since 1999. The long and short of such patchy regulation is that lead continues to find its way into the food chain and on to our dinner plates. Compliance with regulations is sporadic at best, and most consumers are simply unaware of the contamination risk to themselves and wildlife.

My hon. Friends have alluded to studies showing that 76% of game bought from supermarkets, game dealers or game shoots have lead shot fragments present. Indeed, a DEFRA-commissioned study found that 70% of ducks sampled were illegally shot with lead. If that were not enough, almost half of respondents to a British Association for Shooting and Conservation survey admitted that they did not always comply with the law. To top it off, a repeat study in 2013-14 showed that compliance had not improved, revealing that 77% of sampled ducks had been shot illegally with lead. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no primary prosecutions and only one secondary prosecution for non-compliance with the regulations. That is a law that is not working in this land, so we need a change.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman is quoting evidence, but the crucial point is that if he wishes the Government to introduce new restrictions, he must surely come up with evidence indicating that people who consume game in this country have contracted some illness or died prematurely as a result—not in another country; we are talking about UK consumption habits. Unless he can come up with that evidence, he is doing nothing more than making mischief.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am certainly not mischief making. I support the countryside and everything else. As I said to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I cannot point to anyone who has died as a direct result of lead consumption; the point is that various organisations are saying that lead is a danger in diet. We need debates such as this. It might be that we just say, “Okay, we need to further explore the issues,” but it appears from the organisations that I have been speaking to that we need to act now.

I encourage the Minister to outline his assessment of the compliance problem over wetlands. Given the demonstrable disregard for current restrictions, I would welcome his acknowledgment that a complete phase-out is a proportionate means to secure legal compliance. Why have the ban if we are not going to do anything about it, and if there were no danger to wildlife and, ultimately, people?

I draw attention to resolution 11.15 of the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, which was adopted last year and calls for lead ammunition to be phased out by 2017 in countries where there is significant risk of poisoning to migratory birds. Let us not forget that, on top of that, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concluded a little over 30 years ago that

“the Government should legislate to ban any further use of lead shot and fishing weights in circumstances where they are irretrievably dispersed in the environment”.

We have already heard this afternoon that lead-based ammunition continues to be one of the greatest sources of lead in our environment. As much as 6,000 tonnes of shot is discharged every year and at least 2,000 tonnes of shot used for game and pest shooting is irretrievable. I would therefore be pleased to hear whether the Minister agrees with me that, in the light of the evidence on the numbers of wildfowl killed each year, there is a significant risk of poisoning to migratory birds from lead ammunition in the UK. While other nations, including Denmark and the Netherlands, are actively dealing with the matter, the UK seems content to look backwards and turn a blind eye to those who flout the current regulations.

To avoid the real risks that exist, we need positive actions to close the existing regulatory gaps, rather than passivity. It is high time that we stopped ducking the problem and took a common-sense approach to regulating lead ammunition. With softer restrictions on the use of lead ammunition having been widely flouted, the time has come to embrace the growing body of evidence and for all lead shot and bullets to be replaced with non-toxic alternatives. Like so many other hon. Members taking part in the debate—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the time has also come for him to conclude his remarks?

[Alex Cunningham]

I am on my last paragraph, Mr Davies. Like so many other hon. Members taking part in the debate, I urge the Minister to join me in supporting the call for the UK to meet our international commitments and phase out lead ammunition by 2017.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing the debate. He showed the passion that he feels on this issue in his opening remarks. As we all know, lead is a noxious substance with potentially fatal impacts. This is therefore an issue that it is right for the House to address.

I pass on the apologies of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has responsibility for this issue. Hon. Members will have noticed that he has been otherwise engaged in Cumbria in the past couple of days in his role as floods Minister. I am therefore responding to the debate on his behalf.

Government practice is to obtain and use the best possible evidence when taking decisions. That is why, almost six years ago, our predecessors chose to set up the Lead Ammunition Group, commonly known as the LAG—and I think one thing we can all agree on is that there was a time lag in that group’s concluding its work. The LAG began work in 2010. Although a creation of Government, it was deliberately set up as an entirely independent group, formed of experts who would approach the evidence from their various perspectives and provide clear advice on whether and what risks might be posed by lead ammunition and how they could be managed. The potential risks that it was asked to assess related both to wildlife, which is a DEFRA responsibility, and to human health, which is the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. I hope that hon. Members will find it helpful if I set out the subsequent history.

First, the LAG was established in 2010 for an initial 12-month period, after which progress was to be reviewed. However, its final report was not presented to Ministers until June this year. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), asked when it was presented. That was on 3 June. Secondly, by the time the LAG reported, only five of its 10 members remained in place. The remainder had resigned, with four of those submitting a different set of recommendations.

We are therefore in a position in which we have no expert consensus about the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife or on human health. Nevertheless, we must start from where we are, so it is important that we look at the report that the LAG produced and the material that it contains. Even if that report has the support of only half its members, it is nevertheless a substantial document that represents several years’ worth of work. We must therefore consider it carefully, which is exactly what the Under-Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been doing since DEFRA received the report in June.

Subsequently, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, there has been the minority report from those who resigned and the report arising from the Oxford Lead Symposium, which was organised by opponents of lead ammunition. I realise that hon. Members and others outside the House are anxious to have our response to the LAG report, but it is important that we take the time to get this right and weigh up all the other comments, views and evidence that have been submitted to us. The time that it has taken to review that evidence reflects the fact that it is a serious debate and that my ministerial colleagues are looking at the issue closely.

Let me remind the House of the action that Government have already taken. Lead shot has been prohibited for wildfowling since 1999 by the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999. Those regulations introduced a double restriction. First, lead shot cannot be used, on any game, in certain areas—namely, over the foreshore or over a list of named sites of special scientific interest. Secondly, lead shot cannot be used anywhere for shooting certain species—namely, ducks, geese, coot and moorhen. In passing, I will mention that the general supply of lead weights for angling was ended in 1986.

The 1999 restrictions reflected the resolution made that year through the African-Eurasian waterbird agreement, to which the UK is a party. It was agreed that members would work to phase out the use of lead ammunition over wetlands, reflecting the clear evidence that waterbirds can and do scoop up spent lead when feeding and suffer health consequences from doing so. We delivered on the resolution through our regulations of the same year.

There is of course nothing to stop those who shoot from choosing, of their own volition, to use alternative forms of ammunition. Although no other material has exactly the same combination of malleability and density as lead, a number of alternatives have been available, and used in the field, for some time. Those include steel and tungsten for shotgun cartridges and, for bullets for rifles, copper and copper alloys. Use of an alternative is compulsory for wildfowling, but the alternatives can also be used more widely. I understand that some shooters have made the switch, although others have not.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am intervening simply on the point about lack of compliance in relation to shooting wildfowl over wetlands and the use of lead shot in the killing of ducks. Will the Minister respond on the huge level of non-compliance?

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that. The hon. Gentleman highlighted a DEFRA study that did show—he is correct—that the level of non-compliance was up to 70% in certain areas. I will simply say this: it is the law. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, we can all condemn those who are using lead shot where they should not be, against the law, and it is a matter for the police to enforce those existing regulations. Where the law is being broken, it must be enforced, and we are keen to work with stakeholders and others to ensure that we raise awareness of the 1999 regulations—the regulations that already exist. The key point made by a number of hon. Members was that the starting point should be to enforce the regulations that we have, rather than jumping to introduce new regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a very important point about the impact on clay pigeon shooting and the danger of steel ricocheting. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) mentioned that some countries—notably, Norway—had introduced a ban and then reversed it. I understand that in that case, it was for the somewhat surprising reason that steel bullets were getting embedded in trees and that was affecting the machinery of timber merchants. That shows that all sorts of unintended consequences can come from these things. My hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds and for Richmond (Yorks) highlighted their view that some of the data used in the reports were out of date, particularly in relation to the Oxford symposium, and predated the 1999 regulations. I think that is probably a fair point, although other hon. Members have made an equally strong argument that the 1999 regulations are not being enforced as effectively as they could be at the moment; that is also very valid.

In conclusion, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said: this is a very important issue. The contributions in the debate show how complex it is and how strongly felt views are on both sides. That is why the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State are right to take their time to weigh up all the evidence carefully before submitting their response to the LAG report.