Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I can only continue to try to assure the House, and the hon. Lady’s constituents, that we made it very clear in the manifesto on which we stood in 2015 that we wanted to be the first Government to leave the environment in a better state than the one in which we found it, and that is what we will do.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

On 24 November 2015, the then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), announced that the UK Government would ban lion trophy imports by the end of 2017. What progress has been made in that regard, and what reductions in trophy lion hunting does the Minister expect to be made following the review of international treaties when the UK has left the EU?

[Dr Coffey]

I did not quite catch the opening of the hon. Gentleman’s question, when he referred to something from 2015, but I assure him that all these imports are undertaken on a case-by-case basis and that we continue to work with other countries to ensure that we conserve important species throughout the world. It is a key issue in which the UK is a global leader. We will continue to work with other countries and to have an influence.

Animal Welfare

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

The inquiry we are debating was conducted by a Sub-Committee of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I was very pleased to participate as a member of it. We ordered our detailed report to be published on 2 November 2016, following scrutiny of 256 items of published evidence, seven evidence-gathering sessions and three site visits. I am very grateful to a number of organisations, including Pup Aid and the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for the briefings they have provided for today’s debate.

I should say at the outset that the inquiry caused me, and I believe other members of the Committee, significant distress from listening to accounts of serious animal cruelty and, indeed, viewing at first hand animals in recovery shelters and those held in horrific conditions in puppy farms. The treatment and the plight of many of the animals we saw is simply unacceptable. As other hon. Members have done, I want to focus on two aspects of the inquiry: first, the recommendation that an immediate ban be placed on the third-party sale of dogs; and secondly, the recommendation that the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences in England be increased to five years in prison.

This inquiry learned that dogs are bred, sold and traded every single day. While the scale of the market for puppies in England is largely unknown, estimates suggest that somewhere between 700,000 and 1.9 million dogs are traded each year, with a street value of somewhere between £100 million and £300 million per annum. The public purchase puppies from a variety of sources, including unlicensed breeders and back-street traders, commercial licensed breeders and pet shops, illegal importers, Kennel Club registered breeders and excellent rescue organisations. Unlicensed breeders, commercial licensed breeders and illegal importers are the sources that caused us concern. We identified a significant variation in the quality of puppies, their viability and the welfare problems experienced by dogs from these sources.

The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 set out the licensing regime under which local authorities license dog breeding establishments in England. The legislation states that anyone carrying on the business of breeding and selling puppies must have a licence irrespective of the number of litters. However, owing to a lack of clarity, many local authorities in England have interpreted the legislation to mean that a licence is required only for those breeding five or more litters during a 12-month period. As a consequence, a large number of breeders are considered to fall outside the current licensing regime, which means there is no record of the dogs being born and no enforcement of welfare standards.

DEFRA’s recent consultation on its review of animal licensing establishments noted that there was confusion about the threshold and about how it should be used in practice. DEFRA has proposed clarifying the threshold at which a breeding establishment requires to be licensed, suggesting that in the future the requirement for a licence would be applied to

“(a) anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs; or (b) anyone producing three or more litters from their dogs in a 12-month period.”

Witnesses told us that they want a lower threshold. In fact, experts in animal welfare argued that anyone breeding two or more litters per year should be required to register as a breeder. The view is that while one litter might be unintended, anyone producing more than one litter a year is clearly running a business breeding dogs for sale, and I agree with that opinion. Witnesses also told us that those falling below this threshold should be registered with their local authority. For example, the National Companion Animal Focus Group told us that a registration scheme would

“ensure licensing authorities are aware of breeding dogs in their area, and can monitor when they fall into the definitions of commercial breeding”.

I also agree with that opinion. It is vital to bring transparency to ensuring that appropriate welfare standards are in place. For that reason, the Committee recommended that anyone breeding two litters or more per year should be licensed as a breeder, and that those falling below the threshold of a licensed breeder should be registered with their local authority.

Turning to commercial breeders, current requirements dictate that anyone who carries on a business of breeding dogs for sale must hold a licence from their local authority and meet certain conditions, such as providing suitable accommodation, food, water and bedding. Dog breeders are supposed to keep records to show compliance with those requirements. Puppies bred at licensed commercial breeding establishments are required to be sold at those premises or at a licensed pet shop. This is where the problems arise. Undoubtedly there are very good commercial breeders, but in evidence we encountered far too many examples of those requirements being ignored, with puppies being bred in substandard conditions on an industrial scale. Some of those establishments house as many as 200 breeding bitches. The cruelty and lack of care and attention was self-evident. In evidence, the Minister acknowledged that enforcement of the licensing regime was a “mixed picture”, with local authorities placing different levels of emphasis on it. That is an understatement.

We call for improvements in two areas in particular: the current legislation and licensing conditions, and the enforcement of the licensing regime. The current enforcement of the licensing regime is simply unsatisfactory. While some local authorities have developed expertise in animal welfare, the overwhelming majority of English local authorities lack any suitably qualified inspectors. We believe that a national inspectorate, which local authorities could call upon, would enable expertise to develop, bring consistency to the licensing process and support local authorities in enforcing the licensing regime, undertaking inspections and dealing with complaints.

In respect of illegal importers, we found that puppies are being imported for commercial purposes under the non-commercial trade rules that were set up to allow the free movement of people’s pets through the pet travel scheme. Witnesses told us that loopholes originating in the UK mean that the pet travel scheme is abused by unscrupulous dealers and traders. Puppies are being moved as pets and then traded commercially at the final destination. Between the introduction of PETS in 2011 and 2015, there was an 850% increase in the number of dogs entering the UK from Lithuania alone. From Hungary the increase was 761% and from Romania it was 2,055%. As hon. Members have noted, puppies imported in that way are routinely bred in horrific conditions, are taken from their mother when too young and endure long journeys of over 1,000 miles. The welfare of those animals is severely compromised and many do not survive the journey.

During our inquiry, witnesses identified three areas of concern: the age at which puppies were allowed into the UK; a lack of enforcement checks by Border Force; and poor intelligence sharing between UK enforcement agencies. When buying a puppy, members of the public want to buy a happy, healthy animal from a reputable source; however, disreputable dealers are selling animals for huge profits without regard for their health and wellbeing, and leaving families with congenitally unviable, sick animals.

Witnesses told us that the Pet Animals Act 1951 was “thoroughly outdated” and that there is lack of clarity about what is and is not licensable activity. They had differing opinions on how to deal with current problems around the sale of animals. Some called for increased regulation, while others called for a ban on third party sales. On that point the RSPCA bizarrely changed its position several times within the period of the inquiry. The charities Dogs Trust and Blue Cross lobbied Ministers directly in ways that appeared to promote their narrow business interests rather than animal welfare, and disappointingly have chosen not to answer my subsequent correspondence seeking clarity on their position.

On this issue there is no excuse or room for implausible arguments. The Committee’s recommendation to ban third-party sales is essential if unlicensed breeding, commercial breeding and illegal importation are to be brought to an abrupt end. Removing the opportunity to sell abused animals would address the issue. The advice to the public is simple: never buy a puppy that is not with its mother. Those ignoring that advice are supporting horrific puppy farming and regimes of cruelty that are of epic proportions.

I am coming on to my conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Turning to sentencing policy, the sub-committee found that England and Wales has the lowest maximum custodial sentences for animal cruelty in Europe. Scotland currently has a maximum sentence double that of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland is to be applauded for recently increasing its maximum limit to five years. Our witnesses expressed grave concern that sentencing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are too low, neither recognising the seriousness of the offence nor acting as a significant deterrent.

The Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare noted that sentencing powers in England under the Animal Welfare Act are some of the weakest within the international community. The RSPCA noted increasing inconsistency in sentences available in differing animal legislation in England. For example, the Law Commission recently recommended the imprisonment for up to two years for cruelty to wildlife. Under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a person can be sentenced to three years if their dog injures a guide dog, but for only six months if they beat their dog to death with a baseball bat in front of their children in their living room. If the same individual then dumped the corpse illegally, they could be sentenced to five years for fly tipping. If they stole the baseball bat, they could receive a sentence of seven years for shoplifting. This is ridiculous and unacceptable.

DEFRA responded to the inquiry report on 27 January 2017. The response began:

“We have the best animal welfare in the world and we are a nation of animal lovers.”

I say to the Minister that in fact England has some of the poorest animal welfare in the world. I have seen it. If he really wants to show respect to animal lovers in England, of whom there are very many, he must implement the Select Committee’s recommendations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I ask those on the Front Bench to try to stick to nine minutes, otherwise Members in the second debate will not be able to speak.

Badger Culling

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I commend my hon. Friend for putting some of the facts about wildlife on the record. He is right about the reduction in some of our bird and mammal species, such as the hedgehog.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to cite the source of the evidence he just supported?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Well, the source is evident to any countryman out there. There has been a rapid decline in hedgehogs, and we know perfectly well that badgers eat hedgehogs’ young, wild birds and birds’ nests. That, however, is not the subject of the debate, and I do not want to get drawn on that red herring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

As I was saying, we need to use all the methods at our disposal to get on top of this dreadful disease; I have already described the suffering in badgers and cattle that contract it. It is important that we find a variety of mechanisms in our locker to combat it.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will say more about this, but the opposition to the culls always harps on about biosecurity. However much the biosecurity is improved—some simple things can be done, and have been done over the years, such as putting the water trough and feed trough in places where badgers cannot get at them—the plain fact of the matter is that where badgers roam on pasture, and cattle feed on pasture, there is inevitably intermingling.

[Dr Paul Monaghan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I said I would not, but since we have had a break, I will give way one more time and no more.

[Dr Monaghan]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is highlighting some alleged facts in relation to the engagement that badgers have with cattle. I would like to suggest that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate that view whatever.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who is an intelligent chap, that every bit of logic points to the fact that there must be a link. If badgers have TB and cattle have TB—I do not think this island is alone; this takes place in the rest of the world —any scientific hypothesis would assume there is a link. It is not credible for him to suggest otherwise.

We have to take every opportunity to improve biosecurity in the ways I have mentioned. We also need to improve the testing. We know that the traditional swelling test leaves an element of cattle undetected. We need to work on better tests, whether they be skin tests or others. We need my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that we have the resources to research tests that are much more reliable. The polymerase test is being adopted in some areas, which gives a more reliable result. The problem is that it also detects the disease in some animals that do not have it, so they show up in the test as having it. We need to keep trying to develop a more effective test. As well as that, in edge vaccination areas, we need to stop the perturbation effect that I described. We rely on the Minister and the Government to ensure that we have sufficient supplies available to do that, because there is no doubt that that is part of the armoury.

The final part of our armoury is the trial culls. The opposition to the culls tries to maintain that the culls are not improving the situation. Any initial assessment of my constituency would show that where trials have taken place—for example, on the hard edge of the Severn—the incidence of TB has reduced. It is early days, but even the evidence from Krebs and pre-Krebs of the gassing of badgers showed that where badgers are eliminated, the incidence of TB declines.

One thing that my farmers want to know from the Minister today is what regime will succeed the original three cull areas. It seems that everybody has gone to a huge amount of trouble to eliminate badgers in those areas. If the whole thing were stopped dead now, it would be rather a waste of time. They want to know what sort of regime will succeed that. They hope that it will be a light-touch regime and not too onerous. I can tell my hon. Friend that getting the big trial area up and running in the north Cotswolds was very onerous indeed for the farmers involved. I think that he needs to look at ways in which the regime can be made lighter-touch.

In conclusion, my local farmers suffer emotionally and economically. The taxpayer suffers economically. The badgers suffer a painful death. The cattle become unproductive and have to be slaughtered prematurely. It is essential that the Minister reassures the House today that resources are being put into trying to find a satisfactory oral vaccine for badgers; that would be the ultimate solution to the problem. We need to find more effective skin testing, so that all the animals that have this dreadful disease are detected and eliminated from the national herd. We also need to look carefully at the spread of the disease to other species. There is increasing evidence that this terrible disease is spreading into the deer population. Perhaps my hon. Friend can say something about that this afternoon, and about the total situation in relation to TB. Is it stabilising in the main areas affected, or is it still increasing? We need to find that out.

We need to use all the tools in our box. I urge the Minister to keep on with the trial areas; that is what my farming constituents want. They believe that that method works; the proof will come when all the results are evaluated, but anecdotally, so far, they believe that it works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on opening this debate with an excellent speech. We last debated badger culling on 7 September 2016, in a debate that I led in this Chamber. Today, we are debating e-petition 165672, which calls for an end to badger culling, rather than an extension of culls to new areas.

Ending the badger culls is an eminently sensible and empirically sound proposition supported by almost 110,000 members of the public. I welcome the public support for the issue, and Mr King’s leading role in initiating the petition. The e-petition notes that experts in both disease control and animal welfare agree that badger culls have proven to be ineffective and inhumane. I add that the culls are also ruinously expensive, wasting taxpayer money at the rate of more than £6,000 per badger inhumanely slaughtered.

In September, I noted that bovine tuberculosis, or BTB, affects beef and dairy cattle herds in England, and that although Scotland has been officially free from the disease since 2009 and Wales is increasingly demonstrating how to bring it under control, the incidence of infection in England is rising, particularly along the edge areas, which threatens further herd outbreaks and the perpetuation of absolute misery for England’s farmers.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I join my hon. Friend in commending the work done in Scotland to ensure that we have been certified free of the disease for the last eight years. Does he share my concerns about the repercussions for TB control, particularly among cattle, of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU?

[Dr Monaghan]

I absolutely agree, particularly in relation to the evident risks of the spread of infection if appropriate cattle movement control and biosecurity measures are not implemented. That is why the Scottish National party is participating in this debate, even though it relates primarily to England and to the impact of bovine TB on England’s farmers.

We should be in no doubt that bovine TB is a very serious problem, and that killing badgers on an industrial scale is probably making the situation worse. Badger culling is nothing less than a costly distraction from the implementation of an effective solution, which requires a focus on sound animal husbandry and biosecurity, including vaccination, increased cattle movement control measures, and improved infection testing.

We know that bovine tuberculosis is caused by mycobacterium bovis, which is excreted by infected cattle on to the land they graze, where it survives in the soil and is then passed to other cattle and other species. Nevertheless, the predominant mode of transmission in cattle is nose-to-nose, and such transmission is encouraged by trading and moving cattle between herds. Indeed, evidence suggests that the number of new herd breakdowns appears to double approximately every nine years.

In the last decade alone, the UK Government have slaughtered 314,000 otherwise healthy cattle in an attempt to control infection. In 2013, more than 6 million bovine TB tests were performed in England in an ineffective attempt to identify the disease, leading to the slaughter of more than 26,000 cattle. Such skin tests are only 20% to 50% effective. The Minister will be interested to know that a new study, published just last week, shows that, as I argued in September, the tuberculin skin test fails to identify up to 50% of reactive cases. The skin test has always been a herd test, not an individual test. Its efficacy is hindered by the ability of the disease to hide in animals whose immune response is suppressed. In cattle, this could be due to a range of factors, including age, history of exposure, pregnancy and fluke parasite burden.

The ineffectiveness of the test means that in the last decade, the rising incidence of the disease has cost the UK taxpayer more than £500 million. Today, 20% of all new herd breakdowns are detected only in the slaughterhouse, such is the ineffectiveness of the overall testing programme. The inability to bring the disease under control resulted in a cost to the UK taxpayer of almost £100 million in 2014 alone, and the additional cost to farmers is estimated to run into tens of millions of pounds annually. The financial costs are staggering. The rise in the incidence of the disease in England is giving rise not only to an increase in the number of beef and dairy herds affected, but to increased geographical spread and consequently a spiralling cost to the UK taxpayer—more than £1 billion in the next decade alone, by the estimate of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The crisis that England’s cattle farmers, and their families and communities, face cannot be overstated. If the disease continues to increase unchecked in England, it will also begin to threaten herds in other nations that are currently free of the disease, such as Scotland, and that are successfully combating it, such as Wales. I am certain that we all want to avoid that. In that context, it is frankly inexplicable that the rising incidence of bovine tuberculosis in England is being attributed to badgers, because research shows that, even in remote areas of England where bovine TB is rampant, 86% of badgers are clear of it.

The Government must stop allowing farmers to believe that the level of infectious TB in badgers is much higher than it is, and that culling might make a difference when we know that it will not. Despite the huge amounts being spent, no substantial or respectable body of scientific work has ever been produced that contradicts the conclusions of the study by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, which initiated the randomised badger culling trial in 1998. That study, as we have heard, found that reactive badger culling resulted in significant increases in cattle TB incidence, to the extent that culling was abandoned early in the trial. The study concluded, first, that

“badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB”;

secondly, that

“weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs”—

that is, cattle themselves are the disease reservoir; thirdly, that

“cattle-to-cattle transmission…is the main cause of disease spread to new areas”;

fourthly, that

“substantial reductions in cattle TB incidence could be achieved by improving cattle-based control measures”;

and, finally, that

“agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control.”

In short, the scientific evidence does not identify a causal relationship between the presence of badgers and a rising incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle. The current approach means that the people of England can have as much bovine tuberculosis as the UK Government are prepared to pay for.

History shows us that bovine tuberculosis is an ugly opponent, and that dealing with it requires scientific precision in testing, movement controls and selective removal. In the 1960s, bovine tuberculosis infection was reduced by around 80% in under four years. That reduction involved short-term actions in return for long-term benefit. The intelligent and evidence-led approach is to deploy interferon gamma and apply the emerging late-stage tests for hidden bovine tuberculosis, such as RPA 7, alongside biosecurity measures and cattle movement restrictions. Resources must be directed towards testing and control, and plans for expensive and divisive badger-culling pilots in England must be put on hold. There is already more than enough evidence to show that the controversial free-shooting method does not work. The strategy must now be to seek to deploy gamma testing in the pilot areas, and plans should be initiated to invest heavily in supporting livestock controls, with unequivocal backing from the UK Government.

Further attempts to disguise the failure of the badger cull programme are futile. Compelling recent evidence from Wales and Ireland shows that there is no value in addressing the hypothetical contribution from badger culling, especially while the overwhelmingly critical cattle-to-cattle transfer remains uncontrolled. No other country is seriously considering such a pitifully crude, wasteful and ineffective solution to bovine tuberculosis as badger culling.

In September’s debate, the Minister noted the policies that he is overseeing:

“We have annual testing in the high-risk area and four-yearly testing in the low-risk area. We have annual testing in the edge area and six-monthly testing in hotspots in the edge area, and we continue to consider rolling that out. We have contiguous testing in the high-risk area where there is a breakdown, and we have radial testing in the low-risk area, going out to 3 km, where we have a breakdown. We are now consulting on greater use of the gamma interferon test so that we can pick up the disease faster. We are also looking at what more can be done in other species. We are constantly trying to refine and improve our cattle movement controls”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 219WH.]

There is scope for further work on those points. What progress has the Minister made on controlling slurry spreading, on managing deer populations, on limiting hunting with hounds, on restricting cattle movements and, above all, on challenging weak biosecurity measures, including feeding infected cattle to hounds? I say “weak”, because it has recently been brought to my attention that Natural England has rolled back on farmers’ risk assessments; indeed, I understand that in five of the seven new cull areas, only 5% of participants’ farms had received biosecurity visits from Natural England by mid-September 2016. It is unsurprising, then, that Natural England failed to release information from its biosecurity monitoring forms for all the new cull areas and has abandoned the assessment ratings of good, fair and poor that were used up to 2014. Why is that, Minister?

By 2015, the percentage of participants’ farms with cattle that had not—I emphasise not—been visited by Natural England monitoring staff was 55% in west Gloucestershire, 63% in west Somerset, and 68% in Dorset. I repeat that those are the percentages of participants’ farms that were not visited. That is not science-led or evidence-led practice, Minister. Why was a small team of between just seven and 10 people monitoring biosecurity visits from 2012 to 2015? Has the team been expanded to an appropriate level? I also note that the UK Government no longer collect data on the humaneness of culling badgers. Again, why, Minister?

There is also further evidence of a failure to assess the wider ecological impacts of culling. A report by the Food and Environment Research Agency in 2011 identified a range of outcomes from the culling of badgers that could result in disruption to ecosystems. The report identified the potential impact of the resulting change in the abundance of other species on a wide range of habitats, and it indicated that screening exercises and appropriate assessments should be carried out where badger culling was proposed. However, with a total of 10 licences having been issued to date, the UK Government have failed to conduct appropriate assessments to determine whether badger culling is creating wider ecological impacts that affect species and habitats protected under the Bern convention. That is yet another reason why badger culling should be suspended.

The historical and contemporary evidence increasingly demonstrates that the true engine driving the ongoing spread of bovine TB is, and always has been, the so-called problem herds with recurrent and/or persistent chronic TB. The proposition that the inhumane persecution of badgers will miraculously control TB infections is ridiculous, which is exactly why the Welsh Government have abandoned badger culling and why the European Union has never agreed with the UK’s policy in this area. This is a disease more likely to be carried on the boots of human beings than by badgers.

The UK Government should abandon the tuberculosis skin test as the primary means of identifying infection and new herd outbreaks, and should instead adopt modern methods and technologies to address this disease. Specifically, they should adopt gamma interferon tests and robust systems of biosecurity. Combined with a co-ordinated badger vaccination policy in high-risk areas for bovine TB in England, and restricted movement of cattle, this course of action would represent a more progressive and intelligent approach, and it would realise results within months. It would also be more humane and better support England’s farmers.

Just as I did in September, I again ask the Minister to please look to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales; to recognise the important contribution of rigorous blood testing regimes and effective movement controls to reduce the risks of cattle-to-cattle transmission; to introduce a centrally co-ordinated and comprehensive badger vaccination policy in high-risk infection areas in England, focusing on reducing the incidence of this dreadful disease in cattle; and to please stop the regressive and medieval practice of badger culling, which the public abhor, and which diminishes our collective humanity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Monaghan]

The Minister has accurately noted some of the initiatives he mentioned at the conclusion of his speech in September 2016. Can he tell us what impact those measures have had? What action has he taken to address other issues, such as slurry spreading on fields and feeding infected cattle to hounds and perhaps other animals?

[George Eustice]

We publish the disease surveillance data annually in August. To pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge made, that includes data specific to the cull areas that we have under way. Having just implemented the new use and the adoption of the interferon gamma test, it is too early to tell how much impact that will have. What we do know is that the basic surveillance testing measures, pre-movement testing and restrictions have been in place for a number of years. As in Wales, they have undoubtedly contributed to holding the disease in check, but we know that, on their own, the measures will not be enough to roll the disease back.

We continue to do work on developing a cattle vaccine. The BCG vaccine can be used in cattle, but we know it is not 100% effective. It probably gives between 65% and 70% protection to herds, but that would nevertheless be beneficial if we could secure the right kind of test that could differentiate the vaccine from TB. Some years ago, we did manage to get in place an interferon gamma blood test that could do that, but it unfortunately threw up a lot of false positives, which is a common problem. We are now doing work to consider the skin test. We believe that we are close to getting a skin test that can distinguish between the disease and the vaccine. When we are able to get that in place, we will work towards starting trials of that.

A number of Members have raised the issue of Wales. As my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, the area in Wales under the vaccination pilot represented just 1.5% of the country. Wales’s cattle movement restrictions almost mirror ours; there is very little difference. The differences tend to be in the types of restrictions on cattle markets, but they are minor differences. All the other approaches, on surveillance testing and restrictions, are remarkably similar. If we look at the figures, the latest statistics show that 95% of Welsh herds and 94.2% of English herds are TB-free, so the difference is not enormous.

The large drop in TB in Wales that has been quoted by a number of Members seems to be based on a reference point of 2012-13, which was a year with a very high prevalence of disease. In the past year, Wales has seen a 23% increase in the number of cattle slaughtered due to TB, while England has seen just a 4% increase, so we can trade statistics, but I simply point out that the approach in Wales to cattle movement controls is remarkably similar to what we are doing in England. The area covered by Wales’ vaccination pilot is nowhere near large enough to draw the conclusions and inferences that some Members are drawing.

To turn to the badger cull and the science, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn)—he opened the debate, and he has a long track record of campaigning on wildlife issues and animal welfare issues—rightly pointed out that badgers are sentient creatures and that we would not do the cull unless we needed to. As I have made clear many times before, I would not sanction the cull unless I believed it was necessary to combat this terrible disease. The advice we have from our chief veterinary officer is clear that we cannot eradicate the disease unless we also tackle the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. While the policy is contentious, it is the right policy. Sometimes Governments have to pursue the right policy, even if it is not popular.

[George Eustice]

The issue was looked at extensively during the randomised badger culling trials, and we know that in the high-risk area, where there is a strong prevalence of the disease, around a third of badgers have bovine TB. That has been demonstrated previously.

On the science, there is no example anywhere in the world of a country that has eradicated TB without also addressing the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. TB was first isolated in badgers as long ago as 1971. In 1974, a trial was conducted to remove badgers from a severely infected farm, with the result that there was no breakdown on that farm for five years. Between 1975 and 1978, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funded extensive work and demonstrated conclusively that there is transmission and a link between badgers and cattle. Subsequent work in Ireland reaffirmed that finding.

The Krebs review observed that, between 1975 and 1979, TB incidence in the south-west fell from 1.65% to 0.4% after the cull—a 75% reduction. Subsequently, in the late ’70s and early ’80s, more extensive work was done in three exercises. One was in Thornbury, where the TB incidence fell from 5.6% in the 10 years before culling to 0.45% in the 15 years after, which was a reduction of 90%. In Steeple Leaze, there were no breakdowns for seven years after the badgers were cleared. In Hartland, the incidence dropped from 15% in 1984 to just 4% in 1985—a reduction of more than two thirds. I have pointed out the historical data, as I did in the previous debate, because it is often tempting for this House to feel that it is considering issues for the first time, but the challenge of fighting TB is not new and a great deal was learnt during the 1970s and ’80s.

[Dr Monaghan]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. He has given various examples that suggest that culling badgers has been successful in reducing the incidence of bovine TB. Can he tell us the full range of variables that were tracked and monitored in each of those experimental cases? How do we know that the assertion that badgers were responsible for the infection rate is not just an artefact of poor experimental design?

[George Eustice]

It was always recognised that the trials did not have controls alongside them in a scientific way. That is why, as I was going to explain, the RBCT trials were carried out.

Future Flood Prevention

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

This debate follows major inquiries into the social, economic and environmental impact of flooding in England which were undertaken by the Environmental Audit and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committees. I participated in the EFRA Committee’s inquiry, and I took a close interest in the development of the Committee’s conclusions and the preparation of the final comprehensive report, which focused heavily on the future management of flood risk. That report called for the UK Government to strengthen policies to protect communities in England from increasing flood risk.

Last November, when the EFRA Committee published its report, we criticised the UK Government’s fragmented, inefficient and ineffective approaches to flood risk management. I should make it clear that the report was not an academic exercise, but the product of a great deal of work and time spent visiting areas of England that had been badly affected by poor and inadequate flood prevention, and also the Netherlands, where we sought out a number of governmental organisations and inspected world-class flood prevention measures to understand how prevention was managed in a country where it is considered absolutely critical.

The evidence that we collected in the Netherlands stood in stark contrast to the evidence collected in England. When visiting communities in England that had been badly affected by storms Desmond, Eva and Frank, we observed a great deal of activity directed towards the purchase of large displacement pumps and the implementation of risk management systems that could only sensibly be described as reactive. There was nothing new, novel, innovative or insightful in any of the activity that I observed in England, and I was left with the impression that communities shared my disappointment and lingering concerns. In England, a predominant view that emerged was that flooding represented a failure to deliver an adequate emergency response at a time of crisis.

In the Netherlands, the situation could not have been more different. Our detailed conversations with the Delta commissioner, the special envoy for international water affairs, and many other internationally renowned experts were insightful, and highlighted many new, novel and innovative methods of proactively managing and controlling the flow of water to eradicate the risk of flooding. The people of the Netherlands would view a flood as a failure of water management governance arrangements.

The contrast is perhaps best explained by the fact that the Netherlands views flood prevention as a social issue that requires a determined and co-ordinated strategic political approach to guarantee effective water management and the protection of life and property. The approach implemented by the UK Government’s Environment Agency suggests that flooding is considered to be a largely unpredictable but occasionally inevitable consequence of extraordinary weather conditions that require an effective emergency response.

The EFRA Committee did not focus on the purchase of more or larger displacement pumps, but proposed a new and innovative governance model to recognise flooding as a social problem. Like the Netherlands, we advocated a strategic focus on co-ordinated, efficient action to deliver flood prevention. We recommended that the UK Government establish a new national floods commissioner for England, to be accountable for the delivery of strategic, long-term flood risk reduction outcomes agreed with the Government. The commissioner would deliver the strategy through new regional flood and coastal boards to co-ordinate the regional delivery of national plans, in partnership with local stakeholders. The boards would take on current lead local flood authority and regional flood and coastal committee roles, and a new English rivers and coastal authority would assume the Environment Agency’s current role in focusing on the efficient delivery of national flood risk management plans. That governance model would streamline organisational responsibilities, co-ordinate resources and pool expertise to allow each body to deliver their unique role, with funding firmly linked to outcomes, including financial outcomes.

Our recommendations were intended to deliver the following: first, the adoption of catchment measures on a much wider scale, including sustainable drainage systems; secondly, simplified flood risk communications; and, thirdly, improved organisational and resource resilience in all its forms, including spatial planning, building regulations, insurance and emergency response. In addition to shifting the UK Government from a reactive approach directed at flood management towards a more informed and insightful proactive approach focused on flood prevention, the Committee’s recommendations were designed to make better use of financial resources and to recognise the negative impact of fluctuating funding.

The UK Government’s pattern of spending is as unpredictable as the pattern of flooding. Indeed, funding arguably fluctuates reactively in correlation with unpredictable flood events, with budgets topped up above planned levels. The 2016 Budget, for example, committed an additional £700 million in response to the winter 2014-15 floods. The Environmental Audit Committee criticised this for “political calculation”.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s initial report was followed by a very disappointing response from the UK Government. Indeed, the UK Government’s response is summed up in one sentence:

“We do not agree that there is a need for substantial change to the existing national and local governance provisions for flood risk management.”

When challenged on the inadequacy of this response, the EFRA Committee received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), which noted:

“Although we do not agree there is a need for substantial structural change, we are always looking for ways to improve and adapt the way we work to meet current and future needs.”

How bizarre—the UK Government want improvement, but just not the improvement recommended by two Select Committees.

By ignoring the considered and detailed reports of two Select Committees, the UK Government are missing opportunities to act on a wide range of recommendations that would improve and adapt the way the Government work to meet current and future demands. The failure to improve and adapt existing reactive models of operation is not only wasting money, it is leaving households, communities and businesses across England at risk of disaster. The Government’s response continues to fall far short of the recommendations.

This debate takes place as part of the supply estimates process, a means through which the UK Government technically seek Parliament’s authority for spending plans. These are known as “estimates days”. In practice, these debates are three days of general debate when the one thing that is not discussed is the actual estimates, and generally there is no vote. In fact, this House has largely abandoned all opportunities for direct control of public expenditure by means of debate and vote on the estimates presented to the House.

This is particularly important to Scottish MPs, because the former Leader of the House repeatedly claimed that the estimates process provides an avenue for Scottish MPs to scrutinise the financial implications of Bills from which the English votes for English laws procedure excludes us. I conclude by noting that the arcane estimates process fails to function as an effective method of scrutinising UK Government expenditure, and that is to the detriment of everyone.

Domestic Ivory Market

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Borwick]

First, as we all know, the Christie’s stuff is publicly known—Christie’s admits to making a mistake and paid up; that is a matter of public record. As has been said before with regard to the tusks, as we all know, they were in transit and that is what we have got to stop. Every Member in this Chamber, and I am sure that all those watching, would absolutely concur with the hon. Gentleman: we have got to stop the trade and the transit of tusks. There is no disagreement between us on that.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

If the hon. Lady is so enthusiastic about placing a value on everything, can she tell us the value of an elephant?

[Victoria Borwick]

Absolutely immeasurable—nobody is disputing that. However, the argument that I am making is that we cannot compare a wonderful live elephant, where the value of the tusk is to the elephant, with something that comes from several thousands of years ago. I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to compare apples with pears, and that is the point I am trying to make to him. He does not have to agree with me, but that is the point I am making: that the value of an elephant tusk is to an elephant. What I am talking about are objects that have been around for thousands of years and are now in our museums.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the crucial issue of protecting our planet’s wildlife. As we have heard, the magnificent African elephant is at grave and immediate risk from slaughter by poachers for its ivory tusks.

I suspect that many people watching this debate at home, including my constituents, will be wondering why we are debating the plight of elephants again today. Indeed, the many people who signed the petition are, I suspect, bemused that Parliament is again debating a subject that all right-minded people consider incontestable. Many agree that it is incontestable because they are familiar with the plight of the African elephant: they have seen how they are ruthlessly killed and slaughtered; how poachers use axes and even chainsaws to hack into the elephants’ faces to access their tusks; and how all of that is done in front of their young, without a second thought as to the horrific impact on their psychology.

We know that elephants are intelligent, social animals with complex social structures, subtle systems of learning and sophisticated communication, but we are only beginning to recognise the true impact of this slaughter and how it is endangering the species and the ecosystem within which these animals live. Sadly, we are having this debate because the UK Government are contributing to the conditions that encourage the slaughter of these animals and have failed to deliver the promises made in the Conservative party election manifestos of both 2010 and 2015, for which many people voted.

In September 2015, the then US President Obama and China’s President Jinping together pledged to enact near-complete bans on the import and export of ivory. They are to be commended for their pledge, which they upheld. In June 2016 the US Government introduced new regulations to ban the trade in ivory, and at the end of 2016, China announced that it too would introduce a ban on all ivory trade and processing activities by the end of 2017. India, Hong Kong and France, along with almost all African countries, have also introduced bans on ivory trading. In contrast with the United States, China, Hong Kong, India, France and many African nations, the UK Government have failed to act. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) noted, that is regrettable.

Despite the Conservative party manifesto of 2010 noting,

“To give wildlife greater protection, we will… press for a total ban on ivory sales and the destruction of existing stockpiles”

and the 2015 manifesto then explaining, under the heading “We will tackle international wildlife trade”,

“We will…press for a total ban on ivory sales, and support the Indian Government in its efforts to protect the Asian elephant”

the UK Government have done almost nothing. It is largely because the UK Government failed to deliver on their manifesto commitments that e-petition 165905 was signed by more than 107,000 right-minded members of the public. Many will be watching this debate today, and I congratulate and thank each of them for creating this opportunity. In fact, 85% of the public think that buying and selling ivory in the UK should be banned outright.

The e-petition rightly notes that 30,000 African elephants are slaughtered every year just for their tusks. Despite the promises that have been made, the UK Government have still not outlawed the trade. From 2009 to 2014, 40% of UK customs seizures were ivory items, and yet that evidence of an horrific trade has not been sufficient for the UK Government to implement promised action to ban the trade in ivory and fully commit to outlawing the markets that fuel the wasteful slaughter of elephants. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) noted, there are only around 450,000 African elephants left in the world. In another six years, there will be half that number. I wonder how far numbers have to fall before the UK Government finally start taking the action promised more than seven years ago to outlaw a trade that is placing elephants at risk of extinction.

The UK has a thriving, growing domestic ivory market. Ivory is widely available for sale, subject only to some licensing restrictions on post-1947 ivory. Independent reports have found that the UK market plays a critical role in encouraging illegal wildlife trade, provides a hiding place for the trade in illegal products manufactured from post-1947 ivory and is seriously undermining international efforts to close down a hideously destructive trade. The UK Government’s failure to act is simply inexcusable.

The UK Government’s inaction is all the more shaming because while other countries are implementing bans, the UK Government announced plans as recently as 21 September 2016 to permit trade in ornaments and works of art dating to before 1947 by classifying the ivory as antique. More welcome was the announced intention to ban the sale of worked ivory produced after 1947, but disappointingly that remains just an intention. DEFRA, we understand, now plans to consult with environmental groups, industry—whatever that might be—and other relevant parties to establish how and when such a ban could be introduced and necessary exemptions early in 2017. When exactly will that happen, Minister? Sadly, despite the manifesto commitments of 2010 and 2015, that consultation has not happened and the UK Government are procrastinating.

An immediate and total ban is desperately required. We must be absolutely clear that the UK market in ivory is connected to the illegal market in post-1947 or modern ivory. The UK Government should be leading action to completely close down the domestic market with immediate effect for both pre and post-1947 ivory. The UK Government’s current proposal to ban sales of post-1947 ivory does not go far enough. Focusing on so-called modern ivory will not significantly reduce the amount of ivory bought and sold in the UK and will do little to stop the illegal wildlife trade across the world. It will, in fact, continue to encourage the slaughter of African elephants and to offer a hiding place for trade in products manufactured from ivory taken from slaughtered animals.

The UK Government’s failure to act is damaging international momentum and undermining the actions taken by other countries. We need effective action on a range of fronts, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) explained. The people who signed this e-petition want the UK Government to stop procrastinating and begin acting. The people want the UK Government to join the global effort under way to end the ivory trade and to close down the UK’s ivory market. Our constituents are not interested in excuses, in another round of consultations or in spin. They are interested in protecting one of our planet’s most extraordinary animals. They want to know that the Government will honour their manifesto promises and start to protect these priceless animals. I urge the Minister: for goodness’ sake, get on with the task.

Leaving the EU: Animal Welfare Standards in Farming

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) on securing this debate and, indeed, on her excellent speech.

The UK Government’s plans for a hard Brexit, including taking all the nations of the UK out of the European single market—in Scotland’s case, against our will and against our interests—will not only inflict, in our view, catastrophic damage on Scotland’s agricultural sector but bring the serious possibility of damage to the welfare of farm animals. The Minister knows that the people of Scotland voted decisively to remain within the European Union and to continue to enjoy all the benefits and opportunities our membership provides. Short of continuing EU membership, we believe that full membership of the single market and the customs union is the best outcome, not only for Scotland but for each country of the UK, not least in respect of animal welfare standards. Outside the single market, within a UK that has isolated itself in the world, Scottish farmers would face the prospect of paying the same high tariffs that apply to countries outwith the EU such as Ghana or Mozambique, for example. That is hardly the preferential access we currently enjoy.

The consequences will be profound—much lower sales or much lower prices paid to our farmers and food producers. The potential loss of the animal welfare controls we currently have in place to protect both human health and animal health will make future trade agreements considerably more difficult to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) noted, if Scotland is forced to leave the EU, we would expect powers over animal welfare and protection to be fully devolved to Scotland to enable us to address this challenge.

EU regulatory regimes, enforcement, financial support and legislative frameworks help to protect workers and the environment, and create a level playing field. Beyond their importance for trade, regulatory regimes for food safety, animal health and plant health are essential for protecting Scotland’s consumers and environment, and enabling mutually beneficial technical and scientific co-operation. Most of the animal welfare legislation, regulatory controls and enforcement for which Scottish Ministers currently have policy responsibility is derived from EU legislation. The EU legislates on issues affecting the operation of the internal market and the free movement of animals. Indeed, Council directive 98/58/EC, on the protection of animals, is kept for farming purposes and provides general rules for the protection of animals.

However, on 4 January 2017 the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:

“By cutting the red tape that comes out of Brussels, we will free our farmers to grow more, sell more and export more”.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Rolling back on animal welfare standards will create serious uncertainty for potential markets, as will the developing view that any legislation that has animal welfare at its heart might be further diluted by the UK Parliament. If the overriding Government policy becomes cheap food, animal welfare will suffer.

EU law is at the heart of our animal welfare regulations, which protect our animal health, our consumers and our environment. The UK leaving the European Union will mean the repatriation of EU competencies in agriculture, and Scotland’s devolution settlement must change to reflect that. Under no circumstances will we accept the use of exiting the EU as a pretext for centralising control in Westminster. Nor can there be any question of the UK Government attempting to reserve powers that are currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The future of Scotland’s agriculture, including animal welfare standards, must be determined in Scotland.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

As the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I am well aware of the likely impact on the rural economy of the UK Government’s policy on leaving the European Union. Indeed, after the Prime Minister’s speech today outside Parliament, it is clear that that impact will be catastrophic.

We must all be clear that, short of continuing European Union membership, full membership of both the single market and the customs union is the best outcome, not just for the people of Scotland, but in the national interests of each country of the UK. In Scotland, the key economic sectors of the rural economy in terms of employment are agriculture, forestry, fishing, manufacturing, and the wholesale and retail sectors. In remote rural areas, like much of my constituency, tourism, accommodation and food and drink—including whisky and gin—also play a vital role.

Our infrastructure has benefited immeasurably from the European funding of new bridges and roads that have shortened journey times and enabled remote communities to sustain themselves. Building them has created employment, and using them has created a tourist industry that has begun to thrive.

We have benefited economically from enhanced protection for workers, financial support for our farmers and crofters, access to the single market for our goods and products, and new skills and employees found through the free movement of labour.

The hard Brexit announced today will be utterly devastating for Scotland’s rural economies, with high tariffs and the loss of financial support. Our exporters face the prospect of losing the Scottish protected food names that we value, the common regulatory frameworks that help to maintain our food safety, animal and plant health standards, and the competitiveness that we rely on through non-tariff barriers to trade.

We do not have to choose between the single market and the UK market. Scotland is already the top destination for exports from the rest of the UK, but the single market of the EU is Scotland’s real growth market, and eight times bigger than the UK market. As a member of the single market, not only does Scotland have access to a market of 500 million people in Europe, but through the European Union, it trades with the rest of the world.

Today, we reiterate our request to seek common ground with the UK Government and to find a solution that will preserve Scotland’s membership of the European single market, and for the UK Government seriously to consider Scotland’s place in Europe.

Air Quality

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

This inquiry was conducted by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, led by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). As a member of the Committee, I was pleased to participate. We published our report on 20 April 2016, after close scrutiny of 56 items of published evidence and four evidence-gathering sessions.

The Committee framed a number of recommendations, offered the UK Government additional advice and commented formally on a number of vital matters. We also endorsed the UK Government’s approach to certain aspects of new road transport technologies. In developing our recommendations, the Select Committee considered 12 important themes relating to UK Government policy and air quality in England. The themes included: the integration and reinvigoration of UK Government actions and policy; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs air quality strategy and analysis of cost relative to benefit; DEFRA nitrogen dioxide plans; how best to fund local action; EU emissions tests and the impact of test inaccuracies on DEFRA plans; the use of so-called defeat devices in software by Volkswagen; new road transport technologies; and emissions from ships, agricultural and greenhouse gases.

Despite mounting evidence of the health and environmental impacts of air pollution, the Committee found little evidence of a cohesive cross-Government plan to tackle emissions and improve the quality of the air that people breathe in England. In part, the Government’s narrow focus appeared to relate to a failure by the Cabinet Office to establish clear duties and policy responsibilities for each Department. Furthermore, we observed that Ministers must begin to develop more open and transparent communication strategies in order to engage with the public. In that regard, we were unimpressed by the Cabinet Office’s role in co-ordinating policy development and found the work of the inter-ministerial group on clean growth to be opaque.

Disappointingly, DEFRA policies aim to cut air pollution to the legal limits, although it is known that actual threats to health and the environment are evident at much lower levels. DEFRA policies therefore lack ambition, making little attempt to calculate whether cost-effective means can be developed to meet real-life demands representing much tougher targets. Such calculations could be based on robust evidence about the benefits of cleaner air against the costs of policies needed to achieve it, such as imposing constraints on polluting industries.

The Committee demonstrated that enhanced information flows are required within DEFRA if the contribution and value of clean air to society is to be identified and acted on. We also identified that DEFRA policies must begin to incentivise voluntary action rather than regulation. Mandating lower pollution is clearly not the most cost-effective method of encouraging a general focus, and it typically results in a compliance-focused approach by industry in relation to specific activities, rather than the development of a more generalised approach that seeks to accrue benefits associated with a more positive state of affairs. The Committee found DEFRA’s overall approach to reducing pollution likely to result in a compliance culture.

Emission reduction targets should be based on scientific evidence and strategies for pollution reduction based on effective cost-benefit analyses. Ministers must set out with absolute clarity the actions required across Government if the public are to be reassured that the Government are committed to improving air quality substantially. It is worth noting that parts of London, such as Oxford Street, now represent the most polluted environments in the world. The scale of the challenge facing the UK Government in England on emissions is immense, but the public will be interested to know that the UK Government are largely not addressing it.

In particular, the Committee was told that DEFRA’s plans for clean air zones will impose a one-size-fits-all category D model on cities from Southampton to Leeds. In London, there are also plans for an ultra-low emission zone, but our evidence demonstrated that few in power appear to understand what that means. We also heard evidence suggesting that the UK Government must give local authorities greater control to implement policy flexibly, in order to tailor measures better to local circumstances. For example, we took evidence suggesting that cities would find it more effective to limit vehicle access at certain times of day or target specific bus routes rather than to implement less considered blanket bans on access.

It was therefore remarkable for us to find that the UK Government have planning powers to levy charges discouraging the use of vehicles in specific areas only for the five cities with the highest levels of pollution, although it is known that dozens of identifiable areas breach current EU pollution limits. That finding sits at odds with many developing nations, and indeed with policies being implemented now to address pollution in cities such as Athens, Paris, Rome and Madrid. If the UK Government are to avoid having their air quality policies left in tatters, DEFRA and the Department for Communities and Local Government must fund wider programmes such as those supported by the local sustainable transport fund, which has demonstrated that it delivers benefits cost-effectively.

We also looked at specific measures to reduce emissions from shipping, agriculture, the building industry, public transport and cars. We endorsed the UK Government’s support for a wide range of technologies, including the provision of fiscal incentives such as lower fuel duty rates for cleaner fuels. We viewed positively new technologies such as gas-powered or hybrid vehicles and fully electric vehicles that can offer solutions for different transport needs. Sadly, however, the UK Government appear to be taking a technologically passive approach that is inhibiting support for the necessary research, development and implementation of low-emission technologies.

Indeed, the UK Government’s response to our inquiry has been disappointing, if not lamentable. Not only have they failed to address the Committee’s recommendations, but they recently lost two cases in the High Court in respect of their failures to implement appropriate measures to limit pollution. On 8 December, the European Union initiated legal proceedings against the UK Government for their failure to apply penalties against Volkswagen and, more worryingly, for failing to disclose full information to the EU Commission. Those failures and omissions are instructive. They are also a damming indictment of ineffectiveness—all the more so since the Minister herself told the Committee only this week that air quality was her “top priority”.

We have found that DEFRA’s approach is based on predictive assumptions that are too cautious. A history of failure to translate theoretical standards into cleaner air means that it must keep its assumptions under review. At the current rate of change, it will be many, many years before ultra-low emission vehicles replace all the types of vehicles and heavy plant currently causing pollution. Faster progress could be made if further measures were introduced to encourage people to buy newer, perhaps unfamiliar and in many cases more costly, technologies. The UK Government must rise to that challenge or face the prospect of losing further credibility in the courts.

Greyhound Welfare

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in your place again, Mr Rosindell. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

The inquiry was conducted by a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee, which was led by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—I will call him my honourable friend, in support of the solidarity of the Committee. I was very pleased to participate as a member of that Sub-Committee. We published our report on 10 February 2016, following detailed scrutiny of 65 items of published evidence, four evidence-gathering sessions and two site visits. We framed a number of recommendations, offered the UK Government additional advice and made formal comment on a number of vital matters.

Greyhound racing has been relatively common in the UK since the 1920s. In recent years there has been a sustained decline in the popularity of such racing, but it continues to draw substantial interest, to the extent that in 2014 it supported a £1.3 billion off-course turnover for bookmakers. It is big business.

The Sub-Committee heard very distressing stories of animal abuse and mistreatment. We heard about animals being discarded or destroyed when no longer fit to race. Examples included dogs being thrown out of the back of vans on motorways on the return journey home from a lost race and microchips being transferred from dog to dog to evade scrutiny and legitimate checking processes. There were also allegations of doping. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) rightly highlighted examples of cruelty identified by those animal charities that care so well for many of these animals.

As we have heard, the report considers carefully the often conflicting interests of enthusiasts and those concerned with animal welfare. However, there is a third interested party: bookmakers, specifically those responsible for the Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Service, which in 2014 paid £26 million to dog tracks for the rights to televise and broadcast some 29,000 races each year. In 2007, the Donoghue report into the industry—and it is an industry—found:

“If it were not for BAGS, there would no longer be a sustainable licensed greyhound racing industry”.

The Committee found no reason to disagree with that statement. We found that the all-day racing schedules of BAGS require large numbers of dogs and put enormous pressure on trainers, owners, handlers, tracks and the animals to meet the broadcasting schedule of the large bookmakers that control BAGS.

The Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, which the report assessed, governs the tracks. Greyhound welfare is also covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which requires recognition of conditions away from the track, including trainers’ kennels, and makes it an offence to be cruel to a greyhound or not provide for its needs. The 2010 regulations were made under that Act and specifically cover conditions at the racing track. The enforcement of the 2006 Act was beyond the scope of the inquiry, but it has been considered subsequently by a second Sub-Committee. The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, EU Council Regulation 1/2005 and the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 are also relevant to the inquiry.

Greyhound racing tracks operate within a hybrid or two-tier system. The majority of racing tracks—24 at the moment in England—are licensed by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, which means they operate under GBGB’s rules of racing and are subject to inspections by the organisation. The standards that GBGB sets at tracks are independently accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and are supported at the tracks by the work of track veterinarians.

In England, there are also around five independent or “flapper” tracks that are not licensed by GBGB, but which are regulated and inspected by local authorities. Independent tracks have seen a notable decline in recent years. There were nine when the 2010 regulations were introduced and there are now just five. We found those tracks mostly cater for local hobbyist racing, as opposed to GBGB tracks, which are large-scale, commercially focused and often televised. Although different licensing arrangements exist, tracks under both systems must comply with the 2010 regulations. Askern Greyhound Stadium in Doncaster is one such flapper track, and it was visited by the Sub-Committee. I was pleasantly surprised by the care and attention that is given to animals at that independent track. I found that, in some respects, the standards of care and the attitude towards the animals were better than the standards at the Ladbrokes-owned GBGB track in Crayford, which we visited.

The Sub-Committee was concerned about a number of welfare issues that do not appear to have been fully addressed by the 2010 regulations. First, the regulations do not cover trainers’ kennels, where, as we have heard, racing greyhounds spend approximately 95% of their time. We found that a broad consensus agree that extending the regulations to include those kennels and incorporate them into the UKAS inspection regime is necessary.

Secondly, the fate of retired dogs that are unable to be rehomed at the end of their careers was unclear to the Sub-Committee. We heard from the Greyhound Forum that between 1,000 and 3,700 dogs are unaccounted for each year. I was personally unconvinced that the introduction of microchipping would address that issue, improve traceability or remove the uncertainty about the dogs’ fate. Finally, we were concerned about the inconsistency in the enforcement of greyhound welfare standards across England. For example, Dr Hazel Bentall told us:

“I have seen no evidence that the regulatory framework is consistent and moderated.”

The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) rightly highlighted the absence and importance of baseline data on issues such as injuries, euthanasia and rehoming, which made it difficult to accurately assess the impact of the 2010 regulations on key welfare issues. Nevertheless, we identified two key questions relating to the effectiveness of the 2010 regulations. First, are adequate standards of greyhound welfare upheld under the current regulatory framework? Secondly, would a self-regulated industry see statutory guidelines as a minimum standard to be proactively built on, or is meeting the minimum requirement the full extent of its ambition?

We argue in our report that DEFRA must amend the 2010 regulations to require the publication of essential welfare data, utilising a database containing microchip data. We also argue that bookmakers profiting from greyhound racing have a responsibility to support greyhound welfare. Members of the Sub-Committee considered a statutory levy of 1% of gross turnover to be the most effective mechanism for achieving that. That recommendation addresses the finding that the existing, voluntary levy is ineffective and, as we heard earlier, not paid at all by Betfair, which is a major online betting exchange. Personally, I consider Betfair’s approach to be an abrogation of its responsibility to an industry that it profits from very significantly. I hope its customers and racing enthusiasts consider that abrogation when choosing where to take their custom in the future. We also argue that the 2010 regulations should extend beyond racetracks to cover standards at trainers’ kennels and include independent verification of those standards.

DEFRA’s response to the Select Committee’s report was published in June 2016. I was disappointed by the UK Government’s failure to support the sustainability of the industry. DEFRA noted its commitment to publishing statistics on injury and euthanasia, but did not require the GBGB to act until 2018. That point was well made by the hon. Member—my hon. Friend, perhaps—for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). It is deeply regrettable that the UK Government made no commitment to extend the regulations to cover trainers’ kennels. However, in September they published “Welfare of racing greyhounds: post implementation review”. That report is sadly an essay in procrastination. That, too, is regrettable.

The EFRA Committee’s report is a significant advance that highlights many of the greyhound racing industry’s failings. The UK Government’s response is not. I recognise the Minister’s personal interest in animal welfare, but the continued lack of commitment from the industry—particularly the large bookmaker-owned tracks—and the UK Government should shock the public.

Equine Slaughterhouses (CCTV)

Paul Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

I am grateful to have this opportunity to consider the use of closed circuit television in equine slaughterhouses and to present the views of the Scottish National party. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on securing the debate, which clearly has strong cross-party support, and Kate Fowler of Animal Aid on her tireless work to bring many of the issues that have been presented today to the attention of MPs; I also congratulate colleagues in World Horse Welfare and Blue Cross.

Undercover filming of poor welfare practices in slaughterhouses has, as we have heard, led to campaigns by a number of animal welfare groups to make it a legal requirement for all slaughterhouses to install CCTV—including those that slaughter horses. It is worth reminding ourselves why we are debating the issue today. The investigations that have been conducted have highlighted cruelty and regulatory breaches in no fewer than nine of the 10 randomly chosen English slaughterhouses that were filmed. The abuses included animals being punched and kicked in the head, burned with cigarettes, and beaten with paddles and broom handles, as well as sheep being picked up by their fleeces and thrown across rooms or smashed head first into solid structures, and animals being attacked with shackle hooks or being deliberately given powerful electric shocks through their ears, tails, abdomens and open mouths. That state of affairs is unacceptable.

Currently both the Food Standards Agency and the UK Government support the use of CCTV in slaughterhouses to prevent cruelty; but neither has yet taken the step of arguing that it should be made a legislative requirement. Five abattoirs in England are licensed to slaughter horses. The public would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that a total of 12,431 horses have been slaughtered in those abattoirs over the past three years. Indeed, according to World Horse Welfare, 4,515 UK horses were killed in slaughterhouses in 2014 alone.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for my late arrival.

I come from the Scottish borders, where there is a rich equestrian tradition. There may be five such slaughterhouses in England, but there are none in Scotland, which adds impetus and interest to our interest in this issue south of the border. Does my hon. Friend agree with what we heard—that although CCTV is important it should be just one of a package of measures to ensure the appropriate welfare of all animals sent to slaughter?

[Dr Monaghan]

I agree with my hon. Friend. CCTV is an important initiative that will contribute to animal welfare across all the nations of the UK.

The practice of slaughtering horses in abattoirs is clearly relatively common, as is the gratuitous cruelty. That is a vital consideration, particularly given that 40% of horse owners state that the cost of euthanasia is too high, which leaves slaughterhouses as the only affordable alternative for their companion animals. As my hon. Friend has said, no abattoir in Scotland is currently licensed to slaughter horses. Nevertheless, the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Scotland) Regulations 2012 highlight the relevant standards. The regulations pertaining to horses provide that where

“a slaughterhouse is one in which horses are killed, the business operator must ensure that…a separate room or bay is provided for the killing of horses and no person may kill a horse except in that separate room or bay”

and that

“a lairage in which a horse is confined must contain at least one loose box which is so constructed as to minimise the danger of any horse injuring itself or any other animal confined in that lairage.”

Paragraph 13 of schedule 1 to the Scottish regulations makes it clear that

“No person may kill a horse within sight of any other horse.”

That is broadly similar to the regulations that apply in England.

It is right and proper that slaughterhouses should protect against animal abuse. The Scottish Government take the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter seriously, and will continue to do so. They, along with the Food Standards Agency, have already recommended the installation of CCTV as best practice in monitoring the welfare of animals at the time of killing, regardless of the species. At present, the FSA estimates that 95% of animals slaughtered in Scotland are killed in plants where CCTV has already been installed. The Scottish Government continue to monitor its role in promoting animal welfare.

The European Union also plays a role in guaranteeing the welfare of animals across Europe. Approximately 80% of UK animal welfare legislation originates from the EU, with over 40 laws relevant to animal welfare. Those laws cover all four groups of animals—farm, research, wildlife and companion—and have developed over 40 years. In Scotland we place a value on that legislation. Let us hope that animal welfare will be recognised in the promised great repeal Bill and that there will be no attempt to dilute, cancel or repeal animal welfare laws such those I am advocating.

While CCTV will not prevent all welfare breaches, it is an invaluable tool to help vets, slaughterhouse operators and auditors ensure best practice and compliance with welfare laws. There is compelling evidence that properly monitored CCTV cameras work. Footage has been used to cast light on thousands of abuses resulting in slaughterhouse workers’ licences being revoked and abusive workers being successfully prosecuted. Independently monitored CCTV protects animals. Cameras also protect staff from bullying and false allegations, promote health and safety and deter workers from committing acts of cruelty. Where the cameras are properly and independently monitored and robust action is taken where appropriate, they are a powerful deterrent. Where their presence fails to deter abuse, resultant footage provides evidence for prosecutions.

The UK Government argue that voluntary CCTV schemes do not work. If that is so, let us make CCTV mandatory. Independent monitoring and robust action is essential; without them, the presence of cameras is worthless. I am calling for regulations to set out the details of how the footage is gathered and stored, who monitors it, how much they view, and how often. That change can be achieved simply under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which provides for the making of regulations

“for the purpose of promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible”.

Such a change would not be without precedent as the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 were introduced in that way. Israel and India have already taken similar steps.

Sheffield University has calculated that the cost of an independent CCTV monitoring system would be in the region of £370,000 a year for slaughterhouses in England, and substantially less for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In weighing that against the cost of not acting, it is worth noting that the Minister of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said on 3 February 2015 at column 251 that the cost of cameras themselves was “relatively modest”.

The 2016 Rotherham report suggests that the costs be met by placing a levy on each animal killed, so that industry and consumers pay, rather than government and taxpayers. In that scenario, the costs would be negligible—about a penny per animal. One penny per animal to avoid further scandals emanating from the industry and further reputational damage arising from welfare abuses, deaths of workers and horsemeat contamination seems like a good investment. That investment could address inconsistent management practice in slaughterhouses, inconsistency in CCTV usage, and variable retention periods, and challenge the many businesses currently unwilling to share footage with regulators.

Sending a horse to slaughter is clearly not the preferred choice for most horse owners, but it is an alternative to other methods of ending a horse’s life that are prohibitively expensive, and a more humane alternative to leaving a horse to deteriorate. We must ensure that horses and indeed all animals are treated humanely in slaughterhouses, and I urge the Minister to amend section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to mandate independently monitored CCTV in slaughterhouses.