Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. She was an outstanding Secretary of State in this Department, and the leadership that she continues to show in this area is outstanding, too. She is absolutely right: we want to transcribe and read across existing protections, including the precautionary principle, and then enhance them as and when appropriate.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Reports this week show a massive rise in US-style mega farms, suggesting that the industrial farming seen in the US is coming to the UK. What is the Minister doing to resist that trend?

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

5. What steps the Church of England is taking to tackle food poverty.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)]

First of all, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on her appointment to her role representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission? I thought she did a very good job of answering the questions.

Seventy-five per cent. of churches collect food, 38% provide volunteers, 29% help to manage a food bank, and 21% distribute food vouchers. Churches also work in partnership with organisations such as Citizens Advice and Christians Against Poverty to tackle the underlying causes of food poverty.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that response. As she will know, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the president of Feeding Britain, and I was pleased to be able to launch its latest pilot in Bristol on Friday. I appreciate the work that churches are doing in providing food banks, and the other work that she outlined. What more can they do to lobby the Government on the underlying causes of food poverty that cause people to resort to such measures?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

Christians Against Poverty is proactive in trying to tackle the underlying causes by offering free debt advice and financial education programmes, for example. The charity has just appointed Dickens Heath church in my constituency to provide those courses over a wide region, so I suggest that the hon. Lady may like to approach it about doing the same in Bristol.

Microbead Ban

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) on securing this debate. I know that she is passionate about this subject, and that came through clearly in her opening speech. I also congratulate the Government on putting aside for once their hard-wired preference for voluntary approaches—a battle that I frequently have with them on these issues—and committing to a ban on microbeads in cosmetic and personal products. As I have said several times, if America can do it, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot; if Obama was persuaded of the need to do it, surely we ought to listen and take the same view.

I congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee on its excellent inquiry, which highlighted the loopholes and inconsistencies in voluntary action taken by the cosmetics industry. As we have heard, some companies have decided to phase out products. I had the pleasure of visiting the Lush factory in Poole a few weeks ago, and I am sure the hon. Lady would be very much welcome there. I got to make bath bombs and see all sorts of other products being made. As a company, Lush accepts that it is not 100% perfect but it has an ambition to be as environmentally friendly as possible. For example, when people buy the big gift boxes with several products in, the Wotsit-like things that are used for packaging are now made of potato starch rather than polystyrene, so the moment water is poured on them, they completely degrade. That is the sort of approach we ought to urge companies to adopt.

As I said, it is welcome that the Government are moving forward with the ban. However, like the hon. Lady, I am concerned that it may not be fully comprehensive and include all products that eventually end up in our water supply. She outlined in detail the difference between rinse-off products and products that stay on the skin a bit longer, and I urge the Minister to be as comprehensive as possible. I hope the Government also see the opportunity to take the lead on this issue internationally. We are so good on marine protected areas and are rightly respected internationally for the action we have taken around our overseas territories. I urge the Government to think of this as a pledge we could make under the United Nations’ clean seas campaign; doing so would be a real contribution and we could urge other countries to do the same.

As the hon. Member for Taunton Deane said, the issue of microbeads is a manageable place to begin. As expected, she did such justice to the topic and covered almost anything that anybody could say on it—I expected that to be the case. With your permission, Sir David, I want to talk about the much larger problem of plastic litter polluting the marine environment. This is not just about the damage larger objects do. When items such as plastic bottles enter the water, they eventually break down into ever smaller pieces and become microplastics in themselves. They cause damage in exactly the same way as microbeads do—they just do not start out as tiny items in the first place.

I had the privilege of attending the UN parliamentary assembly in New York last month. It had a special focus on sustainable development goal 14, which is about protecting the oceans. It was widely recognised by the delegates taking part in that discussion that implementing sustainable development goal 12, which is about sustainable consumption and responsible production, was critical to achieving sustainable development goal 14 on ocean health.

Plastic is a durable material that is made to last forever, but far too much of it is used once and then thrown away. Only a third of plastic packaging used in consumer products is recycled in the UK. The rest is either landfilled or incinerated or, worse still, it is never collected and ends up clogging up our sewers and polluting our marine and land ecosystems where it can remain for literally hundreds of years. Anyone involved in the protect our waves all-party parliamentary group might have seen the items that Surfers Against Sewage brought along that they had found. The divers and surfers have found items such as Golden Wonder crisp packets with “3p” on them, which have only just been retrieved from the seas, and coke cans with different designs on. That shows just how long those things will last in the marine environment.

Something as indestructible as plastic should not be disposable. Plastic bottles and other single-use plastics are commonly found in beach clean-ups. Surfers Against Sewage organise those, as does the Marine Conservation Society, and they report that plastic bottles in particular are frequently found along with items such as cotton bud sticks and bottle caps. About 8 million tonnes of plastic enter oceans every year and, as I said, it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces causing real harm to marine life and ecosystems.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady is making a passionate point about wider plastics. Many plastic balls that are bigger than microbeads—I think they are called nurdles—are found washed up on beaches. I know that in Scotland, in particular, lots of collections have been made, and we would be horrified at the quantity of those things that are washing up on beaches.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady’s point, which is an example of what I am saying—plastics become unrecognisable, but they may have been bigger products in the first place, or used as that size of product in various ways.

Plastic entanglement or ingestion can cause choking, intestinal blockages and starvation. One recent study showed that 90% of birds have plastics in their stomachs. On cleanwater.org, Clean Water Action documented the case of a California grey whale that had washed up dead; its stomach contained a pair of pants, a golf ball, more than 20 bags, small towels, duct tape and surgical gloves. Just recently, extraordinary levels of toxic pollutants—industrial chemicals that were banned in the 1970s—were found in the remotest place on the planet: the 10 km deep Mariana trench in the Pacific ocean.

Some Members may have seen the recent documentary “A Plastic Ocean”, which I recommend to them if they have not. It does a phenomenal job of showing what is inside the sea birds and marine animals that they cut open. Sky’s programme “A Plastic Tide” showed truly shocking images of beaches from Mumbai to Scotland, where the daily tide tips up a layer of plastic from around the world. Tourists in Arrochar—have I pronounced that right? I look to my Scottish National party colleagues to tell me—asked why someone had apparently chosen to locate a landfill on a site of such natural beauty.

There is a great deal more that we can all do to reduce plastic litter as consumers taking individual action and as producers; also, critically, there can be action by the Government. Prevention is better than cure. The best way of stopping such litter reaching our rivers and sea is at source—by reducing the amount of waste that is generated in the first place. In 2014 annual global plastic production stood at 311 million tonnes. Shockingly, more than 40% of it was for single-use packing. As much as possible, we need to stop using single-use plastic, from refusing drinking straws to bringing our own bags to the shops. Plastic Ocean has a great check list.

Cities around the world, such as Delhi, have introduced a ban on disposable plastic, and I hope we will soon see an end to the travesty of manufacturers mis-labelling synthetic wet wipes as flushable. I think that will be the next campaign for me and the hon. Member for Taunton Deane. Although the wipes disappear when flushed, that gives the impression they are biodegradable and do not cause harm, but they very much do.

I want to pay particular tribute to the Bristol-based environmental organisation, City to Sea, which campaigns to reduce the amount of plastic flowing from the Avon into the Bristol channel. As well as organising clean-ups, it has encouraged local shops and bars to allow people to refill their drinking water bottles so that they do not have to buy plastic bottles. It has also been brilliant at going round to retailers to try to get them to stop producing plastic cotton bud sticks. It has now got every single one of them to sign up to paper sticks instead, so that shows what can be achieved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and I recently met City to Sea to discuss its campaign to make Bristol a single use plastic-free city. We have a Facebook page that I would like to plug here to publicise the work we are doing. It is called “Let’s Stop Plastic Pollution”.

With litter levels hardly budging over a decade, England stubbornly remains a throwaway society. I very much hope we will see in the Government’s forthcoming litter strategy proposals to introduce a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers, which could help reduce littering, increase recycling and cut back on illegal dumping. Research by the Bristol-based organisation, Eunomia, has shown the scale of the problem and how plastic bottles are littered disproportionately more than any other items. It has also shown the success of deposit return schemes in massively reducing littering of beverage containers: by as much as 80% in one US study. There is growing support for such a scheme. Even Coca-Cola, having resisted, has now said it is on board, which is great news.

We also need to focus on people’s attitudes to dropping litter. Despite the blustery weather, showers and gales, I spent most of the weekend taking part in the Mayor of Bristol’s clean streets initiative. Community volunteers were given hi-vis and litter pickers, and we were out filling sack upon sack with rubbish, most of it plastic, from crisp packets to bottles and all sorts of things. The initiative is partly about making the streets tidier, but also about trying to send a message to the community that they need to play their part. We will make the litter pickers and hi-vis available in libraries so that anyone can go out for half an hour and pick up if they want to. Hopefully, it will be a three-year campaign. The worst bit of the day was seeing a hedge where it was clear that everyone who walked past thought that that was where to put their Coke can or plastic bottle, rather than putting it in the bin down the road. We need to persuade people that that is not the case.

We have heard about the plastic bag charge and how that can make a difference. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane mentioned the circular economy, and I agree that that is where we need to see action from the Government. There are currently too few incentives for or requirements on producers to make their packaging recyclable, leaving local councils to clear up the mess and local taxpayers to foot the bill. Of the 7 million coffee cups thrown away each day, only 1% are recycled through normal collection systems. The Environmental Audit Committee’s next inquiry will be on coffee cups and plastic bottles. Most local authorities do not have the facilities to separate the plastic membrane from the cardboard.

We even have new products coming onto the market such as Nescafé’s incomprehensible Azera, which encourages consumers to make their “coffee to go” at home in a non-recyclable takeaway cup, which is ridiculous. Black plastic is frequently used in packaging, especially in high-end products, even though most local authorities cannot recycle it.

I hope the Government will look seriously at the role that regulation can play in stimulating markets to recycle or reuse materials, such as the proposals by the Environmental Services Association for a new framework for producer responsibility. It is terrific that Unilever has announced plans to make all its plastic packaging recyclable by 2025, but to support businesses that have decided to do the right thing we have to stop other companies being able to undercut them, otherwise we will see the situation that has been referred to.

Taking the circular economy seriously could be a huge opportunity for us. It has been suggested it could deliver half a million jobs. The future is not in low-cost products using finite resources that are designed to fail after their warranty expires but in products that are designed and manufactured for reuse or recycling. Although I welcome what the Government are doing on microbeads, I hope I have stressed to the Minister that they are literally a tiny part of the problem. We need to see a much more ambitious approach not only to microbeads but across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who secured the debate, and all the hon. Members who have contributed to it.

Our decision to ban microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products was clearly signalled by the Minister of State in my Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), when he appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee last year. That decision has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we are making good progress. The consultation on the use of plastic microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products closed last week, and we have already started assessing the responses. We are determined to continue to tackle plastic pollution in our seas and build on the success of the 5p plastic bag charge, particularly when suitable alternatives are already available.

Our understanding of marine litter and its impact is improving all the time. DEFRA funded some of the original research on microplastics and the harm that they can cause to marine organisms. The preliminary results of our latest assessment of marine litter in the UK suggest that although overall levels remain stable, the picture is mixed: the number of items of beach litter has decreased in some cases, such as plastic bags, but increased in others, such as bottle tops and caps and wet wipes.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke about flushables; she will be pleased to know that I had a ministerial roundtable in November to facilitate dialogue between manufacturers, retailers and water industry representatives on how to reduce the non-biodegradable products getting into the sewer system. EDANA—the European disposables and non-wovens trade association—has since updated its code of practice on product labelling by moving the “do not flush” symbol to the front of the package for the type of wet wipes that are most at risk of being incorrectly flushed into the sewer. The impact of the plastic content of wet wipes is not known, but evidence is growing all the time and research is being undertaken.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I am afraid not. You have been very generous in the latitude that you have given to contributions today, Sir David, but since the title of the debate clearly refers to the proposed ban on microbeads, I intend to try to confine my remarks to that topic.

I acknowledge the efforts that the industry has taken to address the problem of microbeads. Several manufacturers and retailers have already stopped using microbeads in their products or have committed to do so, as has been outlined today. As the hon. Member for Bristol East said, the Government often encourage businesses to do the right thing and lead with a voluntary approach, but in this instance, given that alternatives are readily available, we seek a level playing field for industry and certainty for consumers. Specifically, the consultation proposed that we ban rinse-off cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads, such as shower gels, face scrubs and toothpastes. That is because we know these products are washed down the drain, enter the sewer system and end up in the marine environment.

We did not include proposals about other sources of microbeads because we did not have sufficient evidence to support their inclusion. We do not take action to ban products lightly and any extension of the ban needs to be supported by clear and robust evidence. In particular, we must be certain that the products concerned contain microbeads and that if they do the microbeads end up in the marine environment. To address this issue, as part of our consultation we asked for evidence on other sources of microplastics and their environmental impact. If there is new evidence, we will use it to inform future actions to tackle microplastics.

The hon. Member for Bristol East referred to all sources of microplastics earlier, but we need to be careful in that regard. She may not realise quite how many products contain microplastics, including things such as certain blankets or even fleece jackets, which often involve a significant reuse of plastic bottles in the microfibers that are generated. Some people have already suggested—not here in this debate today, but elsewhere—that even the washing of a fleece jacket can contribute to microplastics going into the sewer system, but we need to be careful in considering the extent of any further ban. I know that it is a particular issue for vegans, who do not like to wear woollen fleece jackets, so we need to consider this issue carefully.

Regarding the international dimension, this is a transboundary problem and international co-operation is essential to address it. That is why we have played a leading role in developing the G7 nations’ action plan, as well as our role through OSPAR—the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic—in developing and implementing a regional action plan. We hope that our action to ban microbeads will encourage other countries to take similar measures to ban them. Ireland has announced its own ban and we have already seen positive action from France and Italy. The US ban that has been talked about is yet to come into force, but I am sure that we will be able to learn from the US approach and what has happened there.

The UN’s clean seas campaign was also mentioned. As I said in response to a written parliamentary question recently, we are still considering whether to participate formally in that campaign. Nevertheless, I think we are doing our bit and our actions are contributing to efforts to reduce microbeads in the marine environment.

We are in the process of reviewing the responses to our consultation. One reason why it takes a certain amount of time to get from where we are today to the ban timeline is that we need to notify other EU member states of our proposals under the technical standards directive, and all other countries around the world under the technical barriers to trade agreement, which is part of the World Trade Organisation. In both cases the period of notification is three months, and we plan to run these processes concurrently. Then there will be a short consultation on the actual statutory instrument that we intend to introduce. We will lay the legislation before both Houses by the summer, with the aim of introducing the legislation in the autumn. Our expectation is that we will ban the manufacture of microbeads from the start of 2018 and ban the sale of products containing them from July 2018. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) asked about imported products containing microbeads; the ban will cover such products. As I say, the sale of these products will be banned from July 2018.

It was a pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who talked about how important this issue is around the United Kingdom, including in Scotland of course. The consultation on proposals to ban microbeads was a joint consultation agreed with the devolved Administrations. As a consequence, we intend to end up with a UK-wide ban, but the hon. Members will be aware that each Administration will have to introduce their own legislation, according to their own processes and timetables, to bring such a ban into effect. I have already outlined the timescale that we propose, but we intend to try to co-ordinate our approach with the devolved Administrations.

I had quite an extensive conversation this morning on this issue of microbeads, as it is an interesting topic. The proposed ban will include other industrial hand-cleaning products, and there was discussion in the debate about cleaning products more generally. The UK Cleaning Products Industry Association has assured us that none of the products made by the UK companies it represents contain microbeads. However, hand-cleaning products—things such as Swarfega, which is well-known around the country—will be included within the scope of this ban.

As to how water companies and the Environment Agency can address the issue of microplastics, there is a bit of a challenge regarding the size of the microbeads and what happens with our current filtration systems. The risk that I have been made aware of is that even if we try to filter more, we will still end up with sewage sludge that has to be disposed of. Nevertheless, as part of the enhanced chemicals programme, the Environment Agency will look further at the contribution of sewage treatment to the spread of microplastics. As with many chemicals, the most effective solution is to reduce the amount of plastic getting in to the sewers in the first place. The ongoing campaigns about what should be flushed and what should be disposed of in other ways will help with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane talked about potential threats to fish and humans. I assure her that, on the basis of the current information, the Food Standards Agency considers that it is unlikely that the presence of low levels of microplastic particles that have been reported to occur in certain types of seafood would actually cause any harm to consumers. However, the FSA will continue to monitor and assess emerging information regarding that issue.

As for a wider discussion about fishing for plastic and other elements, I have referred to it in the House. Lord Gardiner is the owner of the litter strategy that we hope will be produced soon, and I am sure there will be further items that the House will want to look out for at that point.

I have already said that we have undertaken some research, which was some of the original research done on microplastics. Of course, other organisations will continue to carry out such research in the future. We asked for further evidence from organisations that would like our ban to go further. We will look carefully at what is presented as a result of the consultation and it will inform our future actions to tackle this issue.

Our action on microbeads is a further demonstration of our commitment to tackle microbeads and microplastics in the marine environment. The approach we have taken is based on clear evidence and as a result has the support of a wide range of stakeholders. We believe that Government, industry and communities need to work together to address this issue, based on the evidence. We look forward to working with stakeholders to take further action to protect our marine environment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter. As I informed the House at the previous Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time, we are looking at the issue in the context of the litter strategy. Let me take the opportunity to publicise this weekend’s Great British Spring Clean campaign, in which I am sure many hon. Members will be involved. I also want to advertise BBC Suffolk’s “don’t be a tosser” campaign. Frankly, we do not want people who toss litter about to flood our beaches with the plastic bottles that my hon. Friend mentions.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

A microbeads ban would be welcome, as would extending it to more products. However, as has been said, larger plastics that break down and become microplastics in the marine environment are the biggest problem. A deposit-return scheme would make a big difference. What is the Minister doing with the circular economy to try to get manufacturers to design out such products so that we do not have the problem of what to do with them in the first place?

[Dr Coffey]

The advance of plastic packaging reflected consumer desire for on-the-go, safe products that individuals can carry. I welcome instances of manufacturers introducing their own recycling schemes. When we were children, we perhaps got pocket money on some of the deposit-return schemes, but we now have kerbside recycling, which has successfully increased the amount of recycled plastics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the NAO will indeed look robustly at all aspects of DFID’s expenditure. For instance, its reports on the CDC and on St Helena both identified challenges for DFID in overseeing expenditure outside its core area of expertise. The Public Accounts Committee’s report on St Helena concluded:

“Thus far, the Department has unquestionably failed the residents of St Helena and the British taxpayer.”

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Under the Government’s new aid strategy, an increasing proportion of the 0.7% is being spent by Departments other than DFID—it is estimated that the proportion will be 30% by 2019. Will the NAO also look at how that money is spent and address concerns that it is being siphoned off, undermining DFID’s core objectives?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that an increasing proportion of the aid budget will be spent by other Departments. That is clearly a challenge for audit, but one that the NAO is capable of undertaking, because DFID remains responsible for reporting to the OECD on official development assistance spending and for reporting to Parliament on the Government’s performance against the 0.7% target. I can reassure her that the NAO is scrutinising that expenditure extremely carefully.

Future Flood Prevention

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is right. Local authorities, the Environment Agency and the drainage boards can do a great deal, but when local people come together, they know exactly what is happening on the ground, and flood wardens can react very quickly.

In Axminster, a shopping trolley went into a culvert and became full of wood. The whole place flooded, including three or four bungalows. If someone local had been there to hoick—I am not sure whether that is a word in the English language—the trolley out of the culvert, the flood would have been stopped. Such actions also ensure that resources go further. We are learning all the time.

One of the Committee’s most important recommendations was for a more holistic approach. It sounds obvious, but we need to work with nature rather than against it. If we slow the flow of the water by using natural remedies such as planting more trees, restoring wetlands and improving soil management, we are likely to see more and better flood prevention. We must allow water to flood fields naturally sometimes if they are on a natural flood plain rather than in an urban area. That would be a much cheaper and more cost-effective way of preventing floods.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as we think about how we ought to spend our farming subsidies in the wake of Brexit, we should look to them to address the issue that he has mentioned? They could perhaps enable farmers to allow their fields to be flooded sometimes as a form of natural flood defence.

[Neil Parish]

I think the hon. Lady must have X-ray sight, because the next paragraph of my notes refers to how we deal with farming and farmers. Now that we need not follow the common agricultural policy exactly, we have an opportunity to introduce a cost-effective measure to allow farmers to store water when they are able to do so. If they have to store it for a short period and it is on grassland, it will probably have very little effect on their crops and profitability, but if it has to be stored on arable land for a long period, they will require more compensation. We need to consider that in some detail, and I believe that we shall have an opportunity to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

There has been some progress, but we need to move much further and faster as the scale and nature of the risk becomes more apparent and as the science develops. My concern is that Government policy is not changing fast enough to meet the changes in the scientific forecasts.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it was found that when the floods hit Cumbria and other areas at Christmas 2015 the Government were not using the most up-to-date modelling? Surely the most important thing is that we try, to the very best of our ability, to predict what is going to come next.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has joined me on the Environmental Audit Committee, and her expertise on this subject has been invaluable.

The Committee on Climate Change warns that increased flood risk affects property values and business revenues, and, in extreme cases, threatens the viability of some communities. A much worse scenario is set out in the climate change risk assessment: if global temperatures rise by 4° above pre-industrial levels, the number of UK households predicted to be at significant risk of flooding will double from 860,000 today to 1.9 million in 2050. Those are very stark and very concerning figures.

I know from my own constituency the misery that flooding can bring. In the 2007 floods, 1,000 homes in Wakefield were flooded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) said, successive Government have cut funding over the years, and 2007 was one such year—it was Labour that cut the funding that year. Our flood defence programme was cut, and I lobbied very hard to get that money reinstated. We got £15 million for flood defences to protect our cities. Thanks to those defences, which were completed in 2012, Wakefield managed to escape the worst of the 2015 storms. That was really, really important.

Nationally, the Government have taken a rollercoaster approach to funding. During the previous Parliament, flood funding was initially cut by 27%. The money was then reinstated after the 2013-14 floods. Mark Worsfield’s review of flood defences, which was published by my Committee, showed that those Government cuts had resulted in a decline in the condition of critical flood defences. It showed that the proportion of key flood defence assets that met the Environment Agency’s required condition fell from 99% in 2011-12 to 94% in 2013-14. Therefore, in three years we had a pretty large decline in the condition of mission critical flood defence assets, which posed an unacceptable risk for communities—I am talking about those communities that think that they have their flood defences in place and that they can sleep easy in their beds at night when it is raining. The more flood defences that the Government build, the more they need to increase the maintenance budgets. We cannot keep spending more on capital and then cut the revenue budget.

The failure of the Foss Barrier in York shows what happens when critical flood assets fail. It was built on the cheap in the 1980s. It was not built to the correct height and it had just two mechanisms. Once one of those mechanisms failed, the water overtopped its banks and reached the electrical switch rooms. Local flood engineers were left with no choice but to raise the barrier with very little notice, which led to hundreds of homes being flooded. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) will have a great deal to say on that.

The Government are talking about spending more on flood defences. One mechanism they are using is the so-called partnership funding. My Committee looked into the sources of that funding and found that 85% of it was coming from public sector bodies. Therefore, the Government are cutting funds centrally, and then putting pressure on hard-pressed local councils, which have seen their budgets fall by 30% over the past seven years, to boost their flood defence assets. When they say, “Do you fancy stomping up for some flood defence assets for your town or city.” those councils are left with no choice but to say yes. Just 15% of the money is coming from the private sector. Of course, it is not a level playing field, because any private sector company that gives the Government money for partnership funding gets tax relief on that so-called donation.

At the start of each spending review, the Government announce how much they will spend. In 2015, they allocated £2.5 billion for flood defences, but after storms Desmond, Eva and Frank, the Government announced, in Budget 2016, that the funding was not adequate and that they were going to invest an extra £700 million. Once again, we have this stop-start approach—cut when it is dry and spend when it is raining. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who was then a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that the extra money would be spent according to a “political calculation”.

Domestic Ivory Market

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), who serves on the Petitions Committee and introduced the debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is passionate about this issue.

It was my birthday a couple of days ago, and although I somewhat dreaded adding yet another year to a number that is already a very respectable cricket score for a batsman, I consoled myself by considering one of the great delights that growing older brings, to which the hon. Gentleman will attest. He has two grandchildren. I am fortunate enough to have five and, on my birthday, I was thinking, as I often do, about my grandchildren, but unfortunately that consideration, so often a source of joy, led me in this instance to distress. I wondered whether all my grandchildren would ever get to see a genuine elephant and, of course, all the other endangered species that have been mentioned. It is an easy and well-worn trick of rhetoric to make such a statement, but on this occasion I really do not think that it is unfounded. Nor is it an unshared concern, because Prince William stated in September 2016 that he fears that Prince George and Princess Charlotte will grow up in a world without elephants—and they are older than my youngest two grandchildren.

In the same month, the International Union for Conservation of Nature stated that Africa’s overall elephant population had seen the worst decline in 25 years, due to poaching. Savannah elephant populations are declining at an estimated 8% a year. Facts and figures applied with cool logic often alleviate my more irrational fears, but in this case they serve only to heighten them. Stark reality makes me more, not less, fearful of elephant extinction and the consequences of that for our world and the people inhabiting it, my grandchildren included.

Since I last spoke in a debate on this issue, which was in this Chamber on 8 December, a minimum of 3,355 elephants have been killed, and that is a conservative estimate; the number could be well over 5,500. Each day, as often as every 15 minutes according to some sources, another elephant is killed, another poacher strikes for greed and gain, another criminal syndicate profits from a corrupt practice, another country sees its rule of law undermined, another ecosystem is degraded and another species comes a step closer to extinction. Between today’s debate and 31 March—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us when the consultation will start and finish, but let us go to 31 March—another 4,800 elephants will die.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in trying to nail the argument that this is just about killing animals for the Chinese medicine trade? The police in this country have seized ivory that has been antiqued to make it look as if it is older—pre the 1947 deadline. This is not just about the Chinese market.

[Pauline Latham]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady, and in fact how can an ordinary policeman, who has many other duties, tell the difference between pre and post-1947 ivory? That is just not possible.

For many years, Britain was at the forefront of the battle to fight these appalling injustices, taking centre stage on the issue of combating the illegal wildlife trade within the global community. Many Britons have done exceptional, commendable work on the issue, particularly Lord Hague and Prince William. Sadly, though, the UK is no longer at the front of the race, and I do not understand why. At the end of last year, China confirmed its timetable to close its domestic ivory market by the end of 2017. That—[Interruption.] It is indeed too late, but it is better than nothing; we are not doing it. That was a truly monumental step, given that that country has always been one of the largest ivory markets. Hong Kong, a major ivory retail market and a key transit point into mainland China, has confirmed that it will totally ban all ivory sales within five years. Last August, France announced that it would bring forward new legislation for further restrictions on the sale of ivory. Why is Britain not leading; why are we not even following suit?

We should introduce a near-complete ban on the trade of ivory products in the UK. The only exceptions allowed would be out of practicality or for works of genuine artistic value—I am talking about certain works of art ratified by independent art experts, such as the Victoria and Albert Museum. There is a global consensus that domestic ivory markets contribute to the illegal wildlife trade and the poaching of elephants and therefore must be closed, and closed immediately. Admirably, the Government have agreed on a consultation to address these issues—a step that I applaud—but why is it not coming far sooner? As I hope I have proved, every day makes a major difference for elephant populations.

With the illegal wildlife trade conference coming up in London in 2018, the gaze of the international community will be firmly upon us with regard to this issue again. We need to ensure that we can make this conference as successful as the 2014 one was: we need to take action and prove to the globe that we are willing to lead on this issue once again.

It must be stressed that a move to bring in a ban not only is supported by swathes of non-governmental organisations and wildlife charities, but has been promised in the last two Conservative manifestos and championed by the public at large—we have promised to do that. When surveyed, 85% of people believe that it has already happened and ivory trading is illegal.

I am here speaking in the debate only because more than 107,000 people have signed the petition calling for the closure of the ivory market in the UK. As of yesterday, 265 of those people come from my constituency of Mid Derbyshire. I must point out to the Minister, who is representing the Government on this issue today, that the petition was also signed by 228 residents of her own constituency of Suffolk Coastal. I am sure that she will want to ensure that their views are addressed today. Those of us here are speaking not just to one another, but to the thousands of people who have expressed their concern and demanded that a ban be introduced. I am sure that many of us in the Chamber have different opinions on Brexit. Probably the only thing that we can all agree on is that a major element of the decision came from a real frustration at not being listened to—the feeling that politicians do not hear and, even if they do, they do not change anything. Let us show today that we are listening to what people want and that we are willing to make a change.

Bringing about a ban will do three major things: it will stop the poaching, trafficking and buying of ivory—obviously, it will not do that totally, but it will help in that fight. Those elements are closely interdependent: criminals traffic ivory only because they can make money from it, and people can buy ivory only because it has been trafficked in the first place. Therefore, the ways in which those three elements are addressed must be considered in a coherent fashion.

Elephant poaching is a heinous crime. It not only entails the brutal killing of magnificent animals, but threatens the lives of rangers. I said previously that about 1,000 wildlife officers attempting to protect elephants have been killed in the past decade by poachers. That statistic proves that there is a human, as well as an animal, cost to poaching, but I have to say in this instance that, sad though that is, it is elephants, not human beings, that face extinction.

The UK is not the largest ivory market, but the market here is by no means insignificant, with between 500 and 1,000 pieces being sold every week. Some of those who oppose introducing a near-total ban on ivory claim that there is no evidence that antique ivory is related to elephant killings today. In reality, there exists an international desire for ivory products, and the continued trade in ivory in the UK fuels global demand. There is a wealth of evidence to support that. In 2015, there were 182 seizures of ivory, totalling 250 kg, by UK Border Force. Moreover, we know that criminals will go to great lengths to disguise new ivory as antique. In his BBC documentary, “Saving Africa’s Elephants: Hugh and the Ivory War”, campaigner Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall revealed the efforts that criminals make to disguise freshly carved ivory as older pieces. He selected several items that were promoted as antiques in online auctions across the country and through carbon dating demonstrated that six of the nine pieces were actually illegal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham]

I am sure they can and I hope that we will have a system where a piece has to go to a genuine expert before it can be traded and moved out of this country.

It is clear that the sale of antique ivory in the UK provides a false veneer of legality for black markets across the world, because most people cannot tell the difference. Owing to the fact that 31% of ivory exported from the EU comes from the UK, Britain is unfortunately an unwilling but major culprit in the illegal trade and, as such, the killing of elephants. Even those who profit from ivory trading admit that current legislation does not go far enough. Auctioneer James Lewis from Derbyshire, who is in the Public Gallery, admitted that the antiques market contributes to the illegal ivory trade by arguing:

“I've been to Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland and I have seen antique ivory on the shelf next to brand new ivory. It is without doubt the case that profits from old ivory are being invested in modern ivory.”

Introducing the ban will deter those trying to traffic ivory, as the stricter legislation will deprive them of the opportunity to disguise new ivory as old. If nothing can be sold, nothing can be hidden.

The arbitrary nature of the 1947 cut-off date dividing antique and non-antique ivory should also be addressed. There seems to be no real reason for why that date is the dividing line when the rule of thumb, I believe, is that an antique must be at least 100 years old. Just extending the cut-off point might make it harder for criminals, as they would have to go to greater lengths to disguise new ivory as old. I believe that a cut-off date of 1900 should be used, because that is a nice clear date for everybody.

Until we bring in a near-total ban I fear that criminals will find a way to pretend that illegal pieces are legal, however hard it might be, just because of the sheer scale and lucrativeness of the activity. The illegal wildlife trade is considered the fourth most profitable international crime after drugs, arms and human trafficking—we do not approve of any of those, but we seem to think that ivory is okay—and is worth between $15 billion and $20 billion annually. Ivory makes up a significant proportion of that market. It is estimated that every year approximately 200 to 300 tonnes of illegal ivory enter the global market. If we introduced this ban, we could change consumer demand as well as customer behaviour. A lower supply of ivory, which the ban would effect, would restrict the amount that could be bought. More widely, the ban would act as a strong symbol that trading illegal ivory is a crime and one that Britain will absolutely not condone. No member of the public will be against this ban. No one can condone the slaughter of yet more elephants.

I have heard arguments against putting a ban in place on economic grounds and because of the impact on business across the UK. To that, I say two things. First, the economic impact would be slight. Antiques dealers sell a variety of pieces and the amount of genuine antique ivory being sold in proportion to other works is relatively minor. Secondly, and more importantly, I want to stress that the real reason for bringing in this ban is not economic, but moral. When did we argue about extending legislation on zero-hours contracts or—an even more dramatic example—abolishing child labour or sending children up chimneys? Those decisions might have had a negative economic impact on certain businesses, but they were still right. We have an opportunity today to help put in place a ban that will save the lives of truly remarkable animals and prevent there being more bloody corpses. I do not pretend that this ban will solve the issue entirely—it is a global problem—but no significant problem was ever fixed with one decision.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we have a particular role to play in taking the lead in banning this trade because we were the trading nation that reached out to all parts of the world and encouraged this trade in the first place?

[Pauline Latham]

I agree and this debate shows that this is a truly cross-party issue. This is not about politics, but about saving elephants and we do have to take that lead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I am aware of the concerns, particularly about pulse trawling in the southern North sea. I have asked CEFAS, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, to look at the issue, do a review of current literature and give me a report on what we know about the science. In addition, there is a working group in the EU on the matter.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. At the time of the negotiations on the now stalled TTIP deal, the US Agriculture Secretary said that the EU needed to rethink its current bans on chlorine-washed chicken and beef from cattle raised with growth hormones. British consumers do not want those products on their shelves, but given that we are now in a much weaker negotiating position, how can the Minister reassure us that the Government will not allow them into the UK?

[George Eustice]

The US represents US interests in negotiations; the UK Government will represent the UK in any future trade negotiations. As I made clear earlier, we will not compromise on issues such as animal welfare and food safety.

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

8. In what way Church of England asset investments support a low-carbon economy.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)]

I am delighted to be able to announce that last month the Church of England received three awards at the Investment & Pensions Europe awards ceremony, including the award for climate-related risk management, which recognised, among other things, the Church of England’s comprehensive climate policy and commitment to ensuring the reduction carbon in its own portfolio.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I welcome the Church of England’s moves in this regard, but how does commitment to a low-carbon future sit with reports today that the Church has given the go-ahead for fracking on Church land?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

It is not a question of a Church of England go-ahead. This is part of Government policy. On Tuesday, the Church released an updated briefing paper on shale gas and fracking. It does not endorse or reject the outright prospect of fracking, but fracking is acceptable to the Church only if it turns on three points: the place of the shale gas in the low-carbon economy, the adequacy and robustness of regulation, and the robustness of local planning. Of course the Church sympathises with the concerns of individuals and communities that are directly affected by it.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is our co-operation across Europe that has built the resilience of farming, and the huge knowledge base that we all take advantage of, so of course the relationships we maintain with the science and research base across the EU will be absolutely vital to the success of farming in the future.

Of course, our fishermen and women are searching for answers, too. I have always believed that honesty is the best policy to abide by. It is time the Government clearly set out for those working across the fishing industry what they can expect to change after we leave the EU. The building of a sustainable fishing industry in an international context is vital if the industry is to survive, but as has always been the case, it is the responsibility of the UK Government to make sure that small fishing fleets have access to stock.

Accessing global markets is vital for the future of the UK food and drink and farming sectors, but again I have to ask the Secretary of State what the strategy is. It surely cannot be her role to conduct the global auction on every food product, promoting her favourite brands, such as Snowdonia cheese or Walkers shortbread. What is the approach to help every farmer to access tariff-free global markets? She cannot skip over the EU as if it no longer exists. Some 72% of our food and non-alcoholic drink exports go to the EU, and farmers want the security of knowing that they will have tariff-free access to this market. That is why Labour has been explicitly clear: “We want you to have access to the single market and tariff-free trade.” We must warn the Prime Minister, who, from what she has said today, is steering towards a hard Brexit, not to create more barriers or impossible competition for the agricultural and food sectors.

The other pressing issue is labour. Free movement has enabled 98% of the UK farmers’ seasonal workers to come from the EU—80,000 people coming to pick our fruit and veg each year. On this point, we must be clear. This is absolutely not about taking anybody’s job from anyone else. These are jobs that failed to be recruited for locally. This is not an issue on which farmers can afford to wait and see what happens, because they need to know what they will reap before they sow. Seasonal labour is already in short supply as a result of last June’s vote, and the fall in the pound has made other countries more attractive to seasonal workers. The xenophobia is keeping some away—and xenophobia has no place anywhere in our country. We owe it to those who come here to make it clear not only that they are welcome, but that we recognise the valuable role they play in our food and farming sector and in the wider economy.

For those in the EU who have made the decision to work in the UK, the Government should grant them the right to stay now. Indecision and delay is resulting in many leaving and keeping others away. I know that the meat sector has highlighted the serious risk that the dithering over these rights is causing to its sustainability—and the meat sector is not alone. Today, the Prime Minister had the opportunity to provide businesses and workers from the EU with the stability they need, but when she was asked specifically on the point, she yet again ducked the question.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that, apart from a passing reference to the word “agriculture” in the preamble to the Prime Minister’s speech, there was nothing about the environment, food or farming in the 12 objectives that she set out? Does my hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister should be according these subjects far more importance?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I have certainly scoured the speech to try to find the word “environment” in it, but it was not there. I have serious concerns that the environmental protections that we currently enjoy from the EU will not be there for the future. Of course, as we go forward and the EU makes more progress in these areas, there was no guarantee in the Prime Minister’s contribution today that that will be part of her 12-point negotiating plan or strategy. [Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State saying that it is non-negotiable, but if it is a key point on which we expect to make progress, we need to see it in the 12-point plan. Clearly, the Prime Minister missed the opportunity to make clear the importance she would place on the environment; that was not stated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I want to speak about the Environment Audit Committee’s report, “The Future of the Natural Environment after the EU Referendum”, which is tagged in this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), both of whom are in the Chamber today. Our report, produced by a cross-party group of MPs, found that changes from Brexit could put our countryside, farming and wildlife at risk, that protections for Britain’s wildlife and special places currently guaranteed under European law could end up as “zombie legislation”, even with the great repeal Bill, and that the Government should safeguard protections for Britain’s wildlife and special places in a new environmental protection Act. I will talk a little about that, but first I will address the issues around agriculture.

The Committee found that farmers face triple jeopardy from leaving the EU. Let us not forget that farms and farm businesses account for up to 25% of all UK businesses. First, the CAP provides 50% to 60%, on average, of UK farm incomes, and the figure will be much higher for certain farmers. The loss of the CAP threatens the viability of some farms.

Secondly, the new trade agreements could threaten incomes if they result in tariff or non-tariff barriers to export. At the moment, 95% of lamb exports go to the EU. If we are exposed to a common EU customs tariff, it could mean charges of up to 30% according to the Country Land and Business Association. Thirdly, any new trade deals with the rest of the world, such as that proposed yesterday by Mr Trump, could lead to competition from countries with lower animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House that he will do everything necessary to protect the stability of the financial services sector, and again we heard reassurances to the car industry in the UK, but there have been no such reassurances to the 25% of UK businesses that are classed as rural businesses. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said during a question and answer session at the Oxford farming conference that farm exports to the EU will decline post-Brexit. She also did not give my Committee any clarity on whether there will be subsidies for farmers after we leave the EU, and the Committee wants to see clearly defined objectives for future subsidies, such as promoting biodiversity, preventing flooding and repairing peat bogs.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, when the Environment Secretary gave evidence to the Committee, she said that up to a third of environmental legislation will not be covered by the great repeal Bill? That leaves a huge vacuum for environmental protection.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is right. Our Committee discovered that copying EU legislation into UK law will not be enough for up to a third of the UK’s environmental protections. There is a risk that the legislation will be transposed but will no longer be updated because there is no body to update it, will not be enforced because there is no body with the legal duty to enforce it and can be eroded through statutory instruments with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.

Of course, we have had calls from some parts of the Conservative party for a sunset clause in the great repeal Bill, which is another thing from which the Secretary of State did not distance herself when she appeared before our Committee. That is why we want a new environmental protection Act to be passed before we leave the European Union. If the Government are to achieve their manifesto commitment for this to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it found it, they must set out how they will provide an equivalent, or hopefully better, level of protection when we leave the EU. This House will have a vital role in providing clear-sighted scrutiny, rather than cheerleading, as that debate goes forward.

Air Quality

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I was not a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when it prepared this report, although I have subsequently joined and was there for the evidence session on Tuesday, when the Minister once again reassured us that air pollution was a top priority for her Department and, indeed, for the Government. Some of us remain to be convinced, including the courts, as we have seen with the recent ClientEarth proceedings and with the news that the European Commission is taking the UK Government to court for their failures in dealing with the Volkswagen scandal.

In its response to the report, DEFRA described its air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide as “an ambitious plan”, which rather begs the question why it was snuck out on the last day of Parliament before last year’s Christmas recess, hidden in a flurry of written ministerial statements. We will, no doubt, get a similar flurry next week. In its response, DEFRA also rejected the Committee’s call for a comprehensive strategy on the grounds that:

“The national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide already sets out a comprehensive plan”.

But, as we discovered on Tuesday, it only covers NOx. It was disappointing that the Minister did not seem to appreciate, when we spoke on Tuesday, that it was time to update the 2007 plan, which covers all air pollutants. It was more reassuring that the Minister of State, Department for Transport seemed to accept that it was time to do so.

It was also worrying how many times the Government’s response to the report was simply to repeat:

“£2 billion has been committed since 2011”,

with little mention of future plans and funding. DEFRA’s contribution, the air quality grant scheme to support local authority action, went down from £3.1 million in 2012-13 to just £0.5 million last year—a funding cut of 84%.

The Select Committee report expressed concerns about weak national leadership and evidence from the ClientEarth court case suggests that it is the Treasury that has been leading on air quality policy, not DEFRA, by blocking measures to reduce pollution levels. If the Treasury is not prepared to listen to the public health arguments and the moral arguments that we are facing a real emergency, perhaps it needs reminding of the £20 billion that air pollution costs the UK economy every year —10 times the amount that the Government boast they have spent on improving air quality in five years.

Ministers should not need to be dragged through the courts twice to realise that their air quality plan is just not good enough. Ministers’ optimism has little basis in reality. Last year, DEFRA decided that just eight of the 43 air quality zones would still exceed legal limits for NOx in 2020, yet just one year earlier, 28 zones were still expected to be non-compliant. The reason for their belief in this rapid improvement was due to new modelling. Ministers were warned that if real-world emissions were much higher than expected, 22 additional zones would exceed the legal limit, and we now know that diesel emissions are up to 12 times the legal limit.

Why did Ministers choose to base their plans on such optimistic assumptions? Why did they try to block European Union legislation on random inspections of vehicles’ real-world emissions? Why did they support loopholes that give car companies permission to pollute well above legal limits into the next decade? Why are Ministers still ignoring passenger cars, even though they are responsible for 29% of NOx emissions in the UK? The answer, as we learnt from the ClientEarth court case, is that Ministers were not trying to reduce air pollution levels to safer levels, to limit the damage to people’s health, or to prevent premature deaths. For the Government, this was simply a bureaucratic exercise to avoid EU fines and further court action. My constituents and all our constituents are paying the price because Ministers decided that, to meet this technical requirement, they only had to worry about five cities: Southampton, Derby, Leeds, Nottingham and Birmingham.

Yet, as every Bristolian knows, we are never far from the top of the list of most congested cities. Parts of Bristol regularly exceed nitrogen dioxide limits and the World Health Organisation lists Bristol as one of the most polluted cities in the UK for particulate matter. Only this month, the city was warned that it was facing its worst air pollution levels in a decade, with the Government’s index scoring us a worrying nine out of 10. The consequences are clear. According to the British Lung Foundation, people in Bristol are 16% more likely to die of lung cancer than the national average, 12% more likely to be admitted to hospital with asthma and 40% more likely to be admitted to hospital with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A recent study indicated that nitrogen dioxide and particulates are responsible for 300 premature deaths in Bristol annually—8.5% of all deaths in Bristol each year. Perhaps the Minister would highlight to her Treasury colleagues the fact that air pollution costs Bristol £84 million a year.

The British Lung Foundation has expressed to me that only two schools in Bristol have air pollution monitors within 10 metres. There are three schools in my constituency alone in areas where nitrogen dioxide levels are illegally high. Thankfully, we now have a Mayor, Marvin Rees, who is committed to tackling our air quality crisis and has cross-party support across Bristol City Council for a clean air zone. Bristol has responded to the clean air zone framework consultation, has applied for air quality grants and is working with Core Cities on a comprehensive list of recommendations, although it is worth noting that the Mayor has written to me saying that it is a shame that core cities are required to compete against each other for air quality grants.

Bristol’s cabinet member for transport has recently announced with First Bus that routes along Fishponds Road, one of the busiest streets in my constituency, would benefit from a new fleet of low-carbon buses, so the council does understand the need to work with transport providers and taxi fleets. However, the Mayor, like the experts who gave evidence to the Committee, has made it clear that the council needs support from national Government to strengthen legal powers, fund investment, work with vehicle manufacturers and help with real-world data if we are to design effective clean air zones.

To conclude, I welcome the new joint air quality unit between DEFRA and the Department for Transport, and the recognition from Ministers that we need a cross-departmental approach. It was disappointing, however, that DEFRA refused to answer my written parliamentary questions on the work of the clean growth committee, in order to

“protect the integrity of the policymaking process”.

The public have a right to know whether Ministers are suggesting solutions to a problem that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. Is not such a complex problem that affects so many of us best addressed through open engagement, rather than through such cloak and dagger secrecy?

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report assured us that:

“Specific actions have been developed over the course of these meetings”.

So I do hope that we can hear more from the Minister about exactly what those specific actions are.

There is common agreement now that air pollution is an issue that we absolutely must tackle. Perhaps it is now time for a new clean air Act to be passed, some 50 years after the last one. I urge DEFRA to come back to Parliament with a comprehensive, forward-looking plan that includes detailed actions and specific timeframes. It really is time for an end to the complacency.

Greyhound Welfare

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2015-16, Greyhound Welfare, HC 478, and the Government response, HC 133.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. There are around 15,000 active racing greyhounds in the UK today. Although there has been a sustained decline in the popularity of greyhound racing in recent decades, the sport continues to draw crowds and in 2014 it supported a £1.3 billion off-course turnover for bookmakers. I will concentrate a little later on the amount of money being made from the betting on greyhounds and ask whether enough of it is getting back to support greyhound welfare and retirement.

Animal welfare standards expected by the public today are higher than at any time in the past. However, within the greyhound industry, there are sometimes two conflicting priorities—the welfare and integrity standards during a dog’s racing career; and the view of a greyhound as a commercial betting asset. The Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 introduced minimum standards for all greyhound tracks in the country.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its report on greyhound welfare in February. It focused on the effectiveness of the 2010 regulations and their success in safeguarding racing greyhound welfare standards. It was timely, as it fed into the Government’s overdue review of the 2010 regulations, which was published in September.

I will focus today on three of the Committee’s recommendations: the need for greater transparency; kennelling standards away from the track, as well as on the track; and the financing of the industry. Greyhound racing tracks operate within a hybrid or two-tier system. The majority of racing tracks—24—are licensed by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, or GBGB. That means that they operate under the GBGB’s rules of racing and are subject to inspection by the organisation. The standards that the GBGB sets at tracks are also independently accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, and supported by the work of track veterinarians. Any track that meets the required standards may apply to be licensed by the GBGB.

In England, there are also a small number of independent tracks that are not licensed by the GBGB but regulated and inspected by local authorities. These tracks mostly cater for local hobbyists, who keep racing greyhounds mainly as a hobby.

Although different licensing arrangements exist, tracks under both systems must comply with the 2010 regulations. I accept that those regulations have succeeded in improving the welfare of greyhounds at tracks, but there is still much to be done. More transparency is definitely needed in the industry. There are currently no sources of reliable data on greyhound welfare in the public domain. It is therefore difficult to assess accurately the current level of welfare provision or to gauge improvements or deterioration over time.

The Dogs Trust believes that approximately 3,500 greyhounds are unaccounted for every year in the UK. However, as statistics are not published, the true scale of the problem is difficult to assess. The regulations must be amended to require the publication of essential welfare data relating to injury, euthanasia and rehoming. DEFRA’s approach is to rely on a non-regulatory agreement with the Greyhound Board of Great Britain to publish statistics from 2018.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw the “Panorama” documentary that showed a continuing problem with doping in the industry. I know that the board carries out some random drug testing, but doping is still very much being used by unscrupulous owners to speed up or in some cases slow down the dogs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we need much more information about the extent to which doping is a problem and that we need action to tackle it?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Committee visited a GBGB track and we also went to an independent track. While we were at the GBGB track we saw the doping testing taking place. We saw the vets checking the welfare of the greyhound and its ability to race. On the day we went I do not think we could fault the amount of testing and inspection that was going on, but we want to be absolutely certain that on the days when we do not attend the track, the same process is taking place. When it comes to doping, welfare and how many greyhounds are racing, the transparency of the data will tell us where the greyhounds are and how many there are so that if there is a problem we can have the greyhounds tested afterwards as well. There is a real issue.

After what we saw, we believe that the industry is in some ways moving in the right direction and is perhaps not as prone to as much doping as has taken place in the past, but we want to be absolutely certain that it does not take place. It is not only the welfare of the greyhound that is at stake. Doping is an attempt to distort genuine greyhound racing and the result of the race.

I call on the Minister to explain why statistics will not be published until 2018 when the data are already available. In addition, the Government’s latest regulation review did not take the opportunity to extend transparency of reporting to the independent tracks in England. From the industry’s point of view and for the welfare of the greyhound it would be so good to have those figures. If there is nothing to hide, why on earth can we not have the figures sooner? I know that the Minister is very keen on animal welfare. If we had transparency, many of us would feel happier about the situation.

Kennelling is important not only at the track but at the trainers’ kennels. Greyhounds spend approximately 95% of their time at trainers’ kennels. There are pressing welfare issues facing the industry away from the track, and kennelling arrangements differ substantially between the two systems. Although the Government have a non-regulatory agreement with the industry to develop a standard for trainers’ kennels, we are extremely concerned that there is no requirement for this to be used by the independent greyhound sector. Independent trainers’ kennels do not require licensing or inspection. We have concerns that the 2010 regulations do not go beyond racing tracks.

In our report, we urge the Government to extend the 2010 regulations beyond racetracks to cover standards at all trainers’ kennels—both GBGB and independent trainers’ kennels. We recommend that common welfare standards be developed for all kennels and that an independent body verify those standards. The Government are not treating this issue with the severity it deserves. We are disappointed that DEFRA has not recommended extending kennelling standards to the independent greyhound sector as part of its post-implementation review.

I now turn to the financing of greyhound welfare and the role of bookmakers. Greyhounds are bred for the sole purpose of racing—in other words, to provide a betting product. In our eyes, this means that bookmakers have some responsibility to support post-racing welfare, particularly in the area of rehoming. The bookmaking industry made a net profit of some £230 million from greyhound racing in 2014 with a margin of 18%—a margin that is significantly higher and less volatile than a number of other sports. It paid back around £33 million to the greyhound industry in fees for the rights to televise races, and a voluntary contribution for greyhound welfare was paid by some bookmakers.

There has been a decline in the voluntary levy in the past 10 years. In 2015 contributions were £6.9 million, down from £14 million in real terms almost a decade ago. This income stream is threatened by the growth of online and overseas betting operations, which do not tend to make the voluntary contributions. Greyhound racing is currently at the whim of bookmakers who may choose to contribute or not. The voluntary system allows bookmakers to walk away from their responsibility to the industry if the industry tries to increase the levy.

High welfare standards require financing. The onus should be on bookmakers who profit from greyhound racing to contribute financially to improving standards. I understand that discussions between the industry and bookmakers regarding the voluntary levy have now broken down. The Committee calls on the Government to introduce a statutory levy of 1% of gross turnover. This would provide a more stable income stream for animal welfare activities and create an even playing field between contributing bookmakers.

I would go as far as to say that we ought to name the bookmakers who make a contribution to greyhound welfare and those who do not. The bookies who do the right thing are contributing and ought to get some credit for it. The names of those who do not contribute should be made public. In the end, we have to make sure that there is enough money for rehoming. We have very good greyhound rehoming charities that do great work, but they need support, especially from the industry.

We went greyhound racing and we saw the race run in a reasonable way. We saw the greyhounds being checked, including when they came off the track, and we could see very little problem with the race. However, lots and lots of money is being made in online gambling. Therefore it is essential that online gambling should pay a contribution; if the race did not take place, it would not make its money. It should help with rehoming and looking after greyhounds when they finish racing. That is the biggest problem with greyhound racing: they are bred and reared for racing, but what happens to them when they finish? Are they to be discarded or euthanized, or rehomed? We need accurate figures, and enough money for the animal welfare and rehoming organisations to be able to take the greyhounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

In their response to the Committee’s report, the Government mention encouraging payment of the voluntary levy and naming and shaming, but would it not be a lot easier just to make that a statutory requirement so that everyone has to abide by the same rules and pay their way?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady makes a point that several hon. Members have raised. As she will be aware, this area of legislation is a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There is already a statutory horse-racing levy, which has issues of its own. To extend the remit in the way that she and others have suggested would require primary legislation—I do not think we could do that through secondary legislation—and I am told that there may also be EU state aid and competition law issues. Clearly, those types of obstacles will shortly be removed, and in that context the Government may want to revisit and reconsider the issue in the future. I simply say that it would not be as simple as she says to amend the legislation. I am sure that DCMS Ministers will look at this debate, since they are looking closely at these issues in the context of the horse-racing levy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned rehoming, which is a very important issue. There are estimates—they are only estimates—that around 8,000 greyhounds leave the industry, the sport, tracks and racing each year. The Retired Greyhound Trust and other animal welfare charities do incredibly good work. The Retired Greyhound Trust rehomes between 3,500 and 4,000 dogs, and we think that other welfare groups rehome around 1,500 dogs. Some people say there are therefore between 1,000 and 1,500 missing dogs.

We have got the GBGB to commit to publishing clearer data about dogs that leave the sport, in terms of what happens to them and what leaving means. I think we all agree that we should aim at all costs to avoid the euthanasia of perfectly healthy dogs. Wherever possible, we should try to rehome these wonderful, kind, loving dogs. I met two of them when a constituent brought two greyhounds that had been involved in racing to see me.

The EFRA Committee’s report made it clear in paragraph 60, on page 16, that the

“introduction of microchipping should significantly improve the tracking of greyhounds bred for racing from birth to death.”

Let us hope we get some progress on that.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse raised the issues of trainers’ kennels, which I have dealt with, and of disappearing dogs, which I believe we can make some progress on. He referred to the £0.5 million welfare initiatives fund that we mentioned in our response to the Select Committee, which I understand was the result of better than expected fund income and an underspend. That is obviously a welcome boost at a time when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, funds for this sort of work have generally been declining.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) highlighted some appalling cases of animal cruelty. I am as horrified by her examples and anecdotes as any other hon. Member or member of the public would be. I simply point out that every single case she cited is a clear breach of existing animal cruelty laws. Those cases breach the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and would have breached animal welfare legislation predating the 2006 Act.

The hon. Lady also said that we should have a moratorium on the opening of new tracks. I am not sure that that is the challenge we face. We have some 28 tracks in total, 24 of which are under a scheme with the GBGB. Only four are regulated by local authorities, and they are small independent tracks. I am not sure that the challenge we have is dozens and dozens of new tracks opening up and causing new problems. This sport does not seem to be expanding; if anything, it might be losing popularity. I therefore do not believe that we need the type of moratorium she suggests.

The hon. Lady and several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), raised doping. That is already an offence under the Gambling Act 2005, and people can be prosecuted for it. Depending on what is used, it is also potentially an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow may take the view that there has been insufficient enforcement or that inadequate penalties have been applied in some cases, but the legal remedy for those issues exists.

Backbench Business

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[John Mann]

It is estimated that there is a 40% reduction in the giraffe population. It is such a crisis for our world, which we share—we do not own it—and which we choose to concrete over, calling it economic growth. We choose to pretend the world is purely ours, but our species will not survive if we cannot cohabit with other species. In our selfishness we are putting future generations’ lives at stake, through our failure to act.

The hon. Member for Stafford is the expert on matters to do with Africa—I endorse that. He is wise in his advice to Government, and I am sure the House backs him in that. However, we can go further. There are little things we can do. Every delegation of MPs leaving this country should have a briefing about these issues in their hands, and should raise them in Africa and Asia. I raised with one of our ambassadors in central Asia the matter of the snow leopard. There are no elephants in Tajikistan, but there are snow leopards—more than anywhere else in the world. There are good people there, but there is no briefing from the Foreign Office, and the subject is not raised at ministerial level there. It is not being pressed, because it has not been part of our priority. Well, it needs to be. We have the people: we have senior royals and experienced, eloquent MPs. We should be able to do something about it.

Let us see trading standards acting in each part of the country, to find and to prosecute. Let our MPs, our ambassadors or anyone else we have abroad talk with the countries that will benefit if their indigenous species survive and thrive. Let that be significantly higher up the agenda—ours and theirs. Let the Government glory in their manifesto commitment, which is popular. There may even have been the odd vote—in constituencies other than mine—that went to their party for its wisdom in that respect. Let the policy be enacted, and swiftly, so that when we go into the negotiations on the convention on international trade in endangered species and press our case, it is on the basis that we have taken action domestically.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that too often manifestos contain commitments, such as the commitment to a ban on wild animals in circuses, but that despite ample parliamentary time in which to discuss the issues there is endless delay, further consultation, and no concrete action from the Government?

[John Mann]

The fact of the matter is that people vote, so we spend a lot of time listening to every single request.

I want to make a final point to those who are following the debate, and those who are enthused to do something from outside Parliament: I want to get the people to rise up and make demands of us, turn the arguments into numbers, and put pressure on me, the hon. Member for Stafford and every other Member of Parliament. We need a rising up in the country, to say that we are going to do something and are not prepared to sit by—as we have all done in our lifetime—while there is a disastrous decimation of species, and while species that were not endangered in my childhood become critically endangered. Let us turn the tide and put on the pressure. I say to the Minister: be a hero.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing this debate. As has already been pointed out, nearly 77,000 people have signed the petition calling for a total ban and I am sure that the Petitions Committee has linked that to this debate.

Hon. Members have spoken with passion. We have heard about the trade in ivory and its links to the trafficking of poached ivory. That is what it comes back to—the horrific poaching of elephants that is currently taking place. We all agree that it has to stop; we will not stand aside while there is the threat of extinction.

Many hon. Members have expressed their love of elephants, and I admit to that too. In 1977, I saw the appropriately named Jubilee in Chester zoo, and earlier this year I visited South Africa to attend the Conference of the Parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species and saw in Kruger national park elephants roaming wild, as they should be.

One Member asked about international aid. The reason I went to Kruger national park was to see the work being done with UK taxpayers’ money through the aid system to train rangers to prevent the poaching of rhinos. In South Africa, there seems to have been a measure of success; instead of three rhinos being poached a day, we now have one rhino being poached a day. That is some success, but those are still horrific figures.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dr Coffey]

I will not yet—I need to open my speech. The Government are absolutely committed to taking the action needed and showing the required leadership to end the poaching crisis.

A lot of statistics have been cited today, several of which I do not recognise. I would be happy to understand them further. It is my understanding that, at its peak in 2011, it was estimated that 30,000 African elephants were slaughtered in a year for their tusks, based on extrapolations from data from 12 key sites. The International Union for Conservation of Nature reported the loss of 111,000 in the great elephant census, which was announced at the recent CITES COP and was the basis of the parliamentary answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). The 2014 African elephant census, which is collated by a different organisation, provides the most recent and comprehensive data and indicates a 30% fall in the savannah elephant population in a seven-year period between 2007 and 2014. That equates to 144,000 elephants.