Wild Animals (Circuses)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will give way in a moment.

We have to base our decisions on cool hard facts and knowledge of the situation. The speeches I have heard today do not show that; they have avoided the real animal welfare issues and are pandering to the emotions of animal rights activists who care more about their political agenda than about the real welfare of animals.

I condemn utterly and totally cruelty to animals of any kind. I was the shadow Minister for animal welfare for three years before the last election, and I had the same instincts as many people in the Chamber today and many of the people who respond to opinion polls, when they say, “Isn’t it dreadful. It should be banned. How awful this is.”

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

May I make some progress before I give way?

Instead of basing my views purely on what the newspapers or the opinion polls say, I looked into the matter. The truth is that in this country only a small number of animals are in circuses: 39 in total. They are not captured from the jungle and dragged to the circus; many have been born and bred in circuses for generations. [Interruption.] Their entire rhythm of life is based—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I should like to take interventions, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am being shouted down, which is not very fair, especially from a Green MP—I should have thought that she would want to hear the other point of view.

I am a champion for animal welfare, but I shall not just follow the crowd. I shall look at the facts. What is being proposed is worse than those poor animals are used to; their entire life has been in the environment they were brought up in. Wrenching them away from the people who have looked after them, loved them and cared for them would obliterate their rhythm of life and would be crueller than allowing it to continue. I shall now give way.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants science. What about the science from the British Veterinary Association, which says:

“the welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus…A licensing scheme will not address these issues”?

The BVA is one of the most respected scientific organisations for animal welfare in this country. What does he say to that?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Non-domesticated—they are wild animals, but when lions and tigers are 10th generation born in that environment, we are no longer talking about a lion taken out of its natural environment and dragged into the circus. I am afraid to say that the issue is often used by organisations for fundraising. Charities and animal rights groups raise money, and the issue is raised to attract political support and donations, by whipping up emotions instead of treating the facts as they are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I pay tribute to the Members who tabled this important motion.

We need a ban on keeping wild animals in circuses because it is cruel, but we also need a ban because the welfare of those animals is emblematic of the way in which we treat all animals, and is symbolic of the kind of society in which we live. The Government are wrong to suggest that the European Union is somehow preventing us from dealing with the issue. In response to the insistence of Ministers during the last debate on this subject that a legal threat in Europe had been a major factor in the prevention of an outright ban, leading animal protection organisations called a meeting with the European Commission’s Head of Representation, at which it was confirmed once again that the issue of wild animals in circuses was a matter best left to the judgment of member states.

When I was a Member of the European Parliament, we did a great deal of work trying to make progress with animal welfare issues in the Parliament. Often, the advice was to go back to member states in the first instance and to rouse them to act. I have therefore urged Ministers to consider, for example, the action that was taken first on dog and cat fur and then on seal fur. On both occasions, leadership by member states prompted the EU to ban imports of those types of fur. It is significant that the legal advice that was used in an attempt to stop those bans was that there were so-called “outstanding legal impediments”. Exactly the same excuse is being used today. Governments were given the legal advice that it would be impossible to ban imports of cat and dog fur, and the same was said of seal fur, but when individual Governments challenged that dubious advice, they were able to make the bans happen.

It is when a number of forward-thinking member states call strongly for action on something that we see progress on the EU position. There are clear precedents, not least in animal welfare policy, in which action by individual states has been the means by which animal welfare protection has been secured across the EU.

In an attempt to find out whether the Government were genuinely looking for a legal way to make a ban on wild animals in circuses happen, I tabled a written question asking whether the Secretary of State had received any legal advice on

“instances where a single EU member state has taken unilateral action on animal welfare matters which has led subsequently to a change of EU policy in line with that action”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 408W.]

The extraordinarily complacent response was that the Secretary of State had “no recollection” of any such advice. Why is she not going out and asking for that advice? Why is she not looking for the legal means to go ahead with a ban, in line with the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country? Instead, she and her Ministers have been looking for legal cases to cower behind as a cover for not acting.

It is worth reminding ourselves that it is not just because of public opinion that we need a ban, important thought that is. Members have spoken about the importance of science, and I have cited the evidence of the British Veterinary Association, which has stated that

“the welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus; especially in terms of accommodation and the ability to express normal behaviour. A licensing scheme will not address these issues”.

We are not criticising individual circus owners; we are saying that the very nature of being in a circus means that animals’ welfare needs cannot be addressed.

At first, my feeling was that the Government’s position was extraordinarily cowardly. As the debates continue, I am sadly coming to the conclusion that they do not want to act because they do not like to be seen to be banning things, and are therefore looking for excuses. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that successive UK Governments have been in breach of their obligations under the bathing water directive since 1975. Although it is nice to see DEFRA suddenly discovering the idea of complying in full with what it perceives to be its EU obligations, perhaps it is not too cynical to suggest on this occasion that they simply do not want to act.

If the Government wanted to stop this cruel practice, they would be acting. In their defence we would have another euro-sausage type story, with headlines about the UK having every right to act and comments like “How dare the EU interfere?”, as we saw with the “Defend the British banger” story. Yet in this instance, the EU is not telling us what to do. Instead, we are inventing barriers where none exists.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making a marvellous speech. My understanding is that every legal case brought by European circus owners, like the one in Austria that has been mentioned, has been lost. There seems to be almost no real basis at all for the Government’s claim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is very helpful in pointing out that that argument is a smokescreen that the Government are hiding behind. Indeed, the Head of Representation of the European Commission here in London recently wrote a letter to the Captive Animals Protection Society stating plainly, yet again, that the EU considered that

“the welfare of animals…is a matter best left to the judgement of Member States”.

It is not acceptable to have a policy which leaves us just hoping that regulations will have the same effect as a ban, particularly given that the secretary of the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain stated on the day after our last debate that he did not believe the new costs of regulation would discourage circuses from having performing animals. Instead, he stated that

“once we have robust regulation which reassures the public we may see some circuses return to using animals”.

How perverse would that be as an outcome of having licences?

[Mr Foster]

For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Lady confirm that the EU has not said just that these issues are best left to member states? The Commissioner has specifically said that they are the responsibility of member states. That is what gives us the legitimacy to have a ban, and to have it now.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is the responsibility of member states to act, and it is within our remit and right for us to do so. That is what the EU is saying, so it is incredibly perverse to try to do otherwise.

In conclusion, the Government’s judgment on this matter is woefully lacking. They have got it wrong on this one.

[Angela Smith]

I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Lady towards the end of her speech, and I thank her for allowing me to do so. If the vote tonight is in favour of a ban, does she, like me, expect the Government to act on that and bring in a ban as quickly as possible?

[Caroline Lucas]

I think that were the Government not to act in that way, the Great British public would be shocked and any sense of democratic accountability would be undermined. I agree completely with the hon. Lady that they should respect the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country and immediately ban the cruel practice of keeping wild animals in circuses. Personally, I would go further and ban all animals in circuses, not just wild animals. I refer hon. Members to Cirque du Soleil, one of the most famous and successful circuses in all of Europe, which uses no animals at all.

The outcome that the Government imply they want is for there to be no wild animals in circuses. If that is the case, I call on them to show some real leadership and effect a ban now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

No I will not; the hon. Gentleman was not here for much of the debate.

The legal advice we have received on section 12 of the 2006 Act is that although it could be used as the basis for a total ban, it is highly likely that we would be challenged on the basis that an outright ban was a disproportionate measure for improving welfare in circuses. That is exactly the same advice as the previous Government received in the Radford report, which they commissioned after the discussions in 2006. The report makes it absolutely clear that there was insufficient evidence to ensure that the animals’ welfare could be improved only by a ban and not by other means. That was the Radford report’s advice, and it remains the legal advice.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

No. I will finish with the legal matters before giving way again.

Obviously I cannot tell the House that there would be a challenge, or what the result would be, but we do have to note the advice. The Radford review concluded in 2007 that no scientific evidence existed to show that circuses by their nature compromised the welfare of wild animals. It was on that basis that it concluded that a ban on the grounds of welfare would be disproportionate in the absence of evidence that welfare was compromised.

There are two further risks from that action: the cost to the taxpayer and the risk that a court might agree to suspend the ban until legal proceedings had concluded. In other words, although the law itself might have been passed, nothing would have changed for the animals themselves.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Flello]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to take part in the debate or just sit and heckle all morning?

Is the problem that the European Circus Association may—or could, or is thinking about, or is sabre-rattling, or has thought up a good ruse, or just might—take a case to the Austrian court? Is Parliament now bound by the whims of a lawyer acting for a European association?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Governments have been given legal advice saying that it would be impossible to ban the import of cat and dog fur, and the same was said of seal fur, yet when Governments challenged that so-called legal advice they were able to make those bans happen. Does he agree that we should challenge the legal advice in this instance, thus ensuring that we ban this cruel practice once and for all?

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Indeed, I was coming to that very point.

How long does the Minister intend to wait to see whether that hypothetical court case actually starts? If the legal advice from DEFRA officials is so overwhelming, I am sure that the Secretary of State will be only too pleased to publish it. Does the Minister have a copy with him, or will he place it in the Library later today? Legal advice supplied to me suggests that the UK is entitled to make its own domestic legislation on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that a statement of intent—of desire—by the Government would be helpful, so that our constituents would be in no doubt that the refusal so far to countenance the introduction of primary legislation to end the practice is not a political judgment but a practical one, in light of the legal impediments. A statement from the Government to express that view would certainly be very helpful.

However, in response to the urgent question that was put last month in the main Chamber on this issue, we had a somewhat more laissez-faire piece of encouragement from the Minister, when he said:

“If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 499.]

I am happy to take the Minister’s advice, but to be honest I do not think that his response is sufficient. That type of response has certainly not been considered in relation to many other issues of animal welfare. For example, when it comes to the regulation of practices within abattoirs, it would not be sufficient simply to tell people not to eat meat. People who eat meat expect good standards and I know that the Minister’s Department is keen to ensure that good standards are upheld. In recent months, concerns have been expressed about other animal welfare issues, for example in horse racing, and it would not have been sufficient for people simply to have turned off the television set that Saturday afternoon in April.

There are other examples of animal welfare issues when such a response would not have been sufficient, for instance in relation to the fur trade. Yes, consumers, members of the public and society as a whole can take a stand and make their views clear. However, to do that alone ignores the fact that we are all part of one democratic society where we want to be able to set standards that we should all have confidence in, regardless of our personal choices, as I said just now in relation to the meat industry.

I hope that the Minister will accept that there is widespread support for action on the issue of wild animals in circuses. In the Government’s consultation, 94% of respondents wanted an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. In addition, 26,000 people signed the petition that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South referred to in his speech. That petition was also supported by many respected organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the Born Free Foundation and the Captive Animals Protection Society. I hope that we can find a way through the current impasse.

[Caroline Lucas]

Like others, I have a meeting to attend shortly. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing the debate. I want to reiterate the European experience. When I was an MEP and we were trying to progress animal welfare issues in the European Parliament, we were always told to go back to member states and galvanise them. When a number of member states are calling very strongly for action on something, that is precisely what enables the EU position to be much easier. If there is any suggestion that the EU is somehow preventing us from moving on the issue of wild animals in circuses, I reiterate that if we look, for example, at the action that was taken, first, on dog and cat fur, and then on seal fur, on both occasions it was action by member states that enabled the EU to say, “Yes, go ahead”, and then the bans on those types of fur could go forward. There really should be nothing stopping us from moving on this vital issue of wild animals in circuses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Duncan Hames]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I certainly agree. It is my view that this matter is not controversial and it is not one on which we stand alone. There is support for us from citizens not only in our own country but in other countries in Europe, and as a consequence we should not be timid about expressing our views.

In fact, there have been many other areas where regulation and action by Government has been far more controversial than in this case, whether in relation to the endless debate—as it was—about hunting or to the delicate balance that must be struck between competing interests around animal experimentation. Certainly there is an argument to be made about the use of animal experimentation for medical purposes but action has been taken to outlaw animal experimentation for the use of cosmetics, where there is much less justification for such experimentation. Indeed, even in relation to some of the issues that we discuss in this place about farming practices, there are much more complex and difficult matters to weigh up when we are considering action to protect animal welfare than in the case of wild animals being used in circuses. It seems to me that the argument for banning wild animals in circuses is very much about protecting animals and we would miss an opportunity if we did not take that action. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement in that respect in his response to the debate.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. While paying absolutely no disrespect to zoos, may I request that we return to the subject of circuses?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I have to say that I think the Minister’s position is an extraordinarily cowardly one. May I remind him that there was legal advice against a seal ban—a ban on the import of seal products—yet the courage of member states led to that being overturned? There was also legal advice against the ban on the import of cat and dog fur, but, again, the courage of individual member states led to that being overturned. May we have a bit of spine from this Government, and will they respect the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country and ban now these wild animals in circuses?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady needs to reflect on the proceedings she has just mentioned, because they are very different from that which is under discussion now. Those situations involved European member states taking action at European level, whereas this situation involves a single member state, and we believe that if we take this action we may well be infringing European law, to which we are committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is to be applauded for standing up and campaigning on behalf of farmers in his constituency. They need to know that they have got a Government obsessed with keeping them competitive against a lot of international and domestic challenges. The Government recognise the value of farmers in producing food, protecting the environment and being the guardians of ecosystem services, and they now have a Government who are on their side.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

12. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the environmental regulations considered for possible revocation under the red tape challenge.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I want to make it clear that there is no intention of relaxing existing levels of environmental protection. As a former MEP, the hon. Lady will be well aware that most environmental legislation emanates from European directives, and their complete removal would not be possible. Nevertheless, it might be possible to improve their implementation arrangements. The red tape challenge should therefore be embraced by all as an excellent opportunity to gather ideas on how we can regulate better.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, by which I am not entirely reassured. Does she know that in my constituency, in Brighton and Hove, standards for nitrogen dioxide are regularly exceeded at 20 sites across the city? Much of the pollution—as well as its costly health consequences—is caused by traffic. Will she therefore absolutely guarantee to defend the regulations on air quality that set health protection standards should they come under threat from the insidious red tape challenge?

[Mrs Spelman]

The air quality directive is a piece of European legislation. Therefore, it is not involved in any red tape challenge. I share with the hon. Lady a desire to improve air quality, as it has enormous benefits for the environment and for human health. The fact is that air quality demands at a European level are very ambitious and we are working closely with local authorities, the Mayor of London and others to do all we can to improve air quality.

Forestry (England)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observation, and his wonderful turn of phrase. He is, of course, absolutely right that this is a difficult issue, as previous Administrations have found. I am encouraged to think that the amount of interest generated in constituencies will encourage Members on both sides of the House to participate in this fresh approach to finding the best future for our woodlands and forests.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On behalf of the many hundreds of constituents in Brighton, Pavilion who wrote to me in opposition to the forest sell-off, I warmly welcome this U-turn. May I press the Secretary of State on the question of the independent panel? How, precisely, will it include the voices of those inspirational grass-roots movements that led the campaign against the forest sell-off? Will she guarantee that its meetings will be held in public?

[Mrs Spelman]

I hope that the hon. Lady will have heard in my statement what I said about the helpful contributions of the large grass-roots campaigning organisations to debate on this subject. I am quite sure that they will be part of the wide group that we will draw in on our independent panel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. All hon. Members should actively encourage their constituents to read the genuine consultation document. There has been an awful lot of mythology in the press, and we would welcome responses to the genuine consultation.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Given that 60% of private English forests outside the public forest estate are under-managed, and that only 16% of them meet Forestry Stewardship Council standards, compared with 100% of Forestry Commission woodland, are not the public absolutely right to oppose this sell-off, which puts high levels of access and biodiversity at risk?

[Mrs Spelman]

I do not accept that it puts biodiversity at risk. That is something that I am particularly committed to enhancing and improving, as is set out in the proposals. The hon. Lady’s point will remind everybody that the public forest estate covers only 18% of woodland. Under the reforms that we propose, the Forestry Commission would continue in a regulatory role, and I would expect it to help us to achieve even higher standards of maintenance in both the public and the private forest.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Let us go back to the numbers. We sold off 9,000 hectares and bought 5,000. The Government whom he supports—I am grateful that he is backing our campaign on this issue—will sell off more land in the next year than the previous Labour Government sold off in 13 years, and they will do so without giving any guarantees whatever on public access. Government Members should think on that and reflect on the 40,000 hectares that are going in the sale of the century.

Page 18 of the consultation document states that

“significantly increasing woodland cover across the UK would be a cost-effective way to help with both climate change mitigation and adaptation.”

When I met Forestry Commission staff, they told me that they estimated that the future value of biomass and wind power on the public forest estate could be as much as £75 million a year. Perhaps Government Members can tell the House how the sell-off will increase tree planting if there are not enough grants to go around.

I recently met free miners and verderers from the Forest of Dean. They told me that it costs £500,000 to look after their forest, and that it brings £100 million to the rural economy. They want their questions answered. Who will run the forest? What would happen if the much-vaunted charitable trust collapses? How would their commoners’ rights be protected in any transfer? The New Forest costs the Forestry Commission £2.9 million to run. How will that money be raised in perpetuity? I shall answer that question for the House: the money will be raised through increasing parking charges, by closing toilets and by reducing spending on wildlife management. That is not my view, but the view expressed in the Forestry Commission’s staff consultation, which was published today and which lays everything out for us in black and white.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Forestry Commission currently manages all our forests to the Forest Stewardship Council standard, which is well above the base legal level, and does so at a cost of about 30p a year to each of us, which is a pretty good bargain.

[Mary Creagh]

That is a very interesting point and one that I was going to make later. As the hon. Lady has raised it, however, I will address it now. All the timber is responsibly produced, but in an answer on 17 January, the Minister of State said:

“Certification under the UK Woodland Assurance Standard is voluntary and this will be a decision for the new owners of woodland…The consultation…will include proposals on how certification might be maintained.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 471W.]

Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Caton]

I do agree. The evidence of increases is largely anecdotal, but I shall quote the president of the Italian Association of Beekeepers, because in the Po valley a ban was introduced. He said:

“On behalf of bee-farmers working in a countryside dominated by maize crops, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to confirm the great news, for once: thanks to the suspension of the bee-killing seed coating, the hives in the Po Valley are flourishing again.”

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in European countries the initial licensing for such controversial pesticides is done by way of a draft assessment report organised by the manufacturer? Shockingly, the DAR for the commonest neonicotinoid used in Europe was put together by Bayer, who, surprise, surprise, did not find a problem with it. Does he agree that there is a problem with metholodogy?

[Martin Caton]

The hon. Lady has taken me to a point in my speech where I was intending to say the same thing; I may not have to say it now, thanks to her.

On the basis of its findings, Buglife called on the Government to reconsider the position of neonicotinoids, and to suspend existing outdoor approvals for the products pending the findings of a review. It also called for the development of international methodologies for assessing the effects of systemic pesticides and sub-lethal impacts on invertebrates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Caton]

That is exactly my case. The evidence against the neonicotinoids now is that they make bees and other pollinating insects more susceptible to diseases, so it is not just one factor. We cannot rule out the effect of these systemic pesticides. That is the mistake that has been made so far.

Dr Jeffrey Pettis and his team at the US Department found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticides were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it. Those findings are completely in line with some of the other research that I have already mentioned. That research evidence from the other side of the Atlantic follows hard on the heels of the “leaked memo” from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which is about a newer neonicotinoid called Clothianidin. It is highly critical of the risk assessment process used in the US. It states:

“Information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoid insecticides, suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.”

Alarm bells should be ringing by now. Neonicotinoids are a group of relatively new compounds that mimic the insect-killing properties of nicotine. They are neurotoxins, attacking the central nervous system of the invertebrates. They are systemic, which means that they get taken into every part of the plant, including the pollen and nectar. In turn, that means that bees and other pollinating insects can absorb them and carry them back to their nests or hives.

In 2008, total neonicotinoid use in Britain involved more than 2.5 million acres—some quarter of the arable cropland in this country—and they are big earners for the chemical companies that produce them. According to the article in The Independent, the German company Bayer earned more than £500 million from the sale of its top-selling insecticide, Imidacloprid, in 2009, which fits in with the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As she said, there is no independent monitoring of the process of gathering and assessing results by the manufacturer. When that is the foundation of the approval system, is it any surprise that we find disparities between the findings of subsequent independent research on this systemic pesticide and the research in its own 2005 draft assessment report?

We need to look again at the approval mechanism for crop protection. In doing so, we should be employing the precautionary principle.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that DEFRA seems over-complacent about the issue of the ill health of bees? In 2005, I asked the European Commission to comment on cuts that were being made that would halve the number of seasonal bee inspectors. Given that it has been estimated that beekeeping contributes £165 million a year to the UK economy in direct costs and unquantifiable value to the health of our ecological systems, one would have thought that keeping a high number of seasonable bee inspectors would have been a good precautionary measure.

[Martin Caton]

I would not disagree with that. That leads me on to my next point. We are not just talking about honey bees. I am sure that all our hearts go out to beekeepers in these very difficult times, but only 8% of insect pollination is from honey bees; other pollinators contribute enormously to our food security and to the quality of our ecosystem.

As I have given way so many times, I will not be able quite to complete my speech, but I would like to make some points for the Minister to respond to. If he cannot do what I would really like him to do, which is to suspend the use of all new neonicotinoids from tomorrow, I request that he commit today, or in writing as soon as he can, to reviewing the new research that I have referred to, and to reconsidering the licences that have been granted. I request that he withdraw the licences that allow neonicotinoids to be used on plants that produce nectar and pollen until the evidence is clear that they have no impact on the environment, and that he establish a national monitoring system for pollinators and pollinating rates. I ask him to produce a formal response to the scientific papers to which I have just drawn attention, stating what concentrations of neonicotinoids are found in UK water bodies and whether the levels are routinely monitored. I also request that he ask the Environment Agency to work with other agencies to undertake a review of those levels, commissioning research that would be scientifically robust enough to clarify any link between the pesticides and UK populations of wild pollinators.

A Government who aim to be the greenest ever cannot ignore a hugely significant threat to arguably the most important tier of animal life on this planet. They need to act; now is the time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his determination on this subject and his rightful concern about animal welfare. I must point out that his figure of 5,000 is at the top end of the estimate. We do not know how many there are, but the estimate is between 1,200 and 5,000. If, as he says, many of them are being kept in cruel circumstances, that is not a matter for self-regulation; it is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act. If he or anybody else knows of primates being kept in what they believe to be cruel conditions, the owners are almost certainly in breach of providing the five freedoms, which is an offence.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

What discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Home Office on measures to ensure that primates that are brought into the UK for sale as pets are not caught in the wild and then diverted and used for research purposes in particular?

[Mr Paice]

I am very glad that the hon. Lady has asked me that question, because I asked it of myself yesterday when I was going through the information. In reality, primates are not coming in from the wild. I understand that only one animal in the past decade is believed to have been wild-caught and then brought into this country. Of course, they are all covered by the convention on international trade in endangered species anyway, so there are restrictions in place. Anyone wishing to import a primate into this country has to have a licence, and there are very strict conditions. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady if she would like to know about them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

3. What recent estimate she has made of the monetary value of the land managed by the Forestry Commission.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

10. What plans she has to sell or lease part of the Forestry Commission estate.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

There is an ongoing programme of sales run by the Forestry Commission, year on year, to achieve operational efficiency. In the 2009-10 accounts, the public forest estate in England was valued at £700 million. That is the net book value; it does not necessarily reflect the true market value. I intend to consult on proposals for new ownership options for the public forest estate in England, and on how to secure the important public benefits that they provide.

[Mr Paice]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debunk that absurd notion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, before trees can be felled, one requires a felling licence from the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission will continue to have that role, even through those disposals, if that is what happens; and, of course, planning consent would be required to undertake any of those things, such as golf courses or Center Parcs. We have no intention of seeing our forest damaged; we want to maintain the public benefits that we already have.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister make a commitment that all land transferred from the Forestry Commission’s control will be covered by legally binding commitments on new owners to maintain current policies for environmentally and socially beneficial use, especially those on the restoration of planted ancient woodland and on public access? Can he also put on the record what will happen to the funds raised from the proposed new programme to sell off those woodlands?

[Mr Paice]

There would be no point in having a consultation if I were to announce the results of it now, so I am not going to do so. However, I can tell the hon. Lady, as my right hon. Friend has said and I have just said, that we have absolutely no intention of allowing any public benefit of our woodland, be it access, biodiversity or carbon storage, to be damaged by whatever action we take on public ownership.