Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps she is taking to introduce an air quality national framework.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)]

The UK has made significant progress in improving air quality in the past decade, with lower emissions of all five major air pollutants. However, the UK is among 17 European countries, including France and Germany, that are not yet meeting EU emissions targets for nitrogen dioxide in parts of our towns and cities. To help to address this, the Government last year consulted on a clean air zone framework, which will be published shortly.

[Rachael Maskell]

Following three humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to address the 50,000 deaths a year in this country due to poor air quality, and where the Government defended the indefensible, Justice Garnham ordered the Government to produce a new air quality plan by this Monday. Labour believes we need to go further with an air quality national framework as part of a clean air Act. What are the main pillars of the plan and how much resource has the Secretary of State allocated to addressing the UK’s poor air quality?

[Andrea Leadsom]

It is a great shame that the hon. Lady criticises this Government, who since 2011 have committed more than £2 billion to increase the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and support greener transport schemes and have set out how we will improve air quality through a new programme of clean zones. In addition, in the autumn statement we announced a further £290 million to support low-emission buses and taxis, retrofitting and alternative fuels; and, as I say, we will consult on our plans to improve nitrogen oxide emissions very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on that issue, which he and I have discussed on numerous occasions. The Government are committed to giving consumers as much transparency as possible and to improving labelling wherever we can. He understands that there are some difficulties—there is no single definition of halal or kosher, for instance—that make compulsory labelling complex. He is also aware that the European Union has been looking at the issue. Obviously, once we leave the EU there will be an opportunity for us to look at all these issues.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. The 25-year food and farming plan, the 25-year environment plan, the cycling and walking strategy: those supposedly environment-enhancing strategies were all promised to be published before the summer—summer 2016. The Secretary of State has clearly failed the environment, failed farmers and the food industry, and failed to keep her promise. People are now losing their jobs and incomes on her watch. When will those plans see the light of day?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady might be aware that a significant decision was taken by the people of the United Kingdom last summer to leave the European Union. We have been clear about our ambition to make a huge success of the food and farming sector, and to be the first generation to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. On what that means for our plans, it is essential that we consult widely with all the stakeholders. They have clear evidence and ideas to give us for a future outside the EU that is more successful than ever.

Animal Welfare

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree entirely. Many aspects of animal cruelty are reported, but others are not. Having stronger sentencing would be a deterrent; we want to prevent the cruelty from happening in the first place. Having a sentence of at least five years would send the right message. Then it would be up to the courts to decide what sentence they dish out in the end.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is much more important to prevent cruelty in the first place, and therefore changing the legislation on air guns is vital? Cats and dogs are often the targets for people using those weapons. Legislation has been changed by the devolved Administrations for their countries, and it is about time that it was changed in England, too.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady raises a good point. The use of air guns against cats and dogs can have terrible consequences. Lead pellets often cause a lot of injury and subsequent pain.

To make a broader point, we need to do much more in schools and the education system to make sure people know how to look after an animal. Most people do know how to look after animals. Unfortunately, animal cruelty is going on in some families, and perhaps the children do not know of anything else but what is happening at home. We must try to tackle that.

Badger Culling

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed, yes. It is deer in Australia, and there are various problems throughout the world, but in Wales, the neighbouring country to England, we have a very satisfactory situation. Peter Martin was critical of the Farmers Union of Wales for not appreciating what had been done in Wales. He suggested that it should be celebrating the success of the Welsh Government and

“calling on DEFRA and the NFU in England to follow the Welsh example of reducing bovine TB by focusing on improved cattle testing and movement controls. New incidents of bovine TB in cattle are now down by 28% in Wales with a 45% cut in the number of cattle being slaughtered. This now leaves 94% of the Welsh herd TB free, without killing any badgers.”

Ireland has had a fascinating experience. In the 1980s the Irish decided to slaughter all the badgers in the country, which were estimated at 70,000. They exceeded their own expectations, however, because they have culled 96,000 badgers since 1985. The national operation consisted of teams of 100 contractors setting up 6,000 snares a night, working for eight months of every year. In 2012 a whopping €3.4 million was spent culling 6,939 badgers, yet after all that slaughter an examination found that the reduction on the previous year in the number of cattle diagnosed with TB was 55—after that huge expense. That is €61,818 for every cow below the previous year’s figure. It is staggering that that huge amount was spent and so many animals were killed for so little benefit.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is that not even more perverse, given that the badger population is responsible for only about 5.7% of the spread of TB in any form whatever? Investing that money in other biosecurity measures would surely be far better value, let alone more moral.

[Paul Flynn]

As we know, there is a great deal of confused and unscientific thinking about this issue. TB can be spread from badger to badger, from badger to cow, from cow to cow and from cow to foxhound, among which there was recently a significant new outbreak. The Government’s approach has been crude and crowd-pleasing, not science-based. Strangely, in their reply to the petition, the Government actually had the cheek to mention the Krebs report, which was done under another Government, as a matter of some credit to them.

[Rachael Maskell]

TB is also spread by the spreading of slurry on fields. That is not tested, so other measures could be taken. Badgers and cows do not share the same space at the same time. Further research is really needed in that area to prove whether even 5.7% of the disease is spread via badgers.

[Paul Flynn]

That is a really serious problem. We have been permissive in allowing the spreading of slurry. As we know, there is a new case involving the Kimblewick hunt, which hunts in five counties and spreads the infection where it goes. There is permissiveness in not recognising the importance of infection from slurry. It is much easier to blame the badger—to find one culprit and blame it. The Government have their policy. They mentioned the Krebs report, which I believe is the biggest and most scientific analysis that has been conducted anywhere in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

That is an entirely intellectually respectable and humane approach to this issue. Krebs looked at the problem and three approaches were trialled: a reactive approach in which, following TB outbreaks, badgers were culled on and around farms but not elsewhere; a proactive approach in which as many badgers as possible were culled in the whole area and badger numbers were kept as low as possible; and a survey approach, where no badgers were culled but the land was surveyed for details of badger activity. The cull went on for nine years, some £40 million was spent and 10,000 badgers were slaughtered. Reactive culling was suspended in the early days of the trial due to an increase in bovine TB outbreaks in reactive culling areas compared with areas in which no culling had taken place. That was a surprising result, but the independent scientific group advised that reactive culling should not be used to control bovine TB.

After that long period, Mr Krebs announced his decision. He said that the trial evidence should be interpreted as an argument against culling. This is not some prejudice-based release put out by a political party seeking favours; this is scientific proof of the highest order. He said:

“You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers… It doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease.”

He said that he had recommended randomised badger culling trials in 1997 because it was not known then whether a cull would be effective or cost-effective. His view on the issue was formulated after he saw the results—it was based on evidence. No party should have returned to the idea of culling after that impressive evidence and all the scientific reports that supported it had come out.

Imperial College London researchers reported that

“reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after”

culling took place. Within three or four years, badger numbers were up to their previous level. The researchers added:

“These results, combined with evaluation of alternative culling methods, suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB”.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with his time. Is it not really perverse that, throughout the culling process in 2016, badgers were not tested to see whether they were carriers of TB and we therefore really do not know what impact the cull is having?

[Paul Flynn]

That demonstrates the Government’s amateurish approach. They wish to get the animals out of the way, but they have not made a serious attempt to find out how bovine TB is spread.

We now have another worry: the Kimblewick hunt. That must be taken into account, but there does not seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm from the Government to take it up. The Kimblewick hunt is an amalgamation of three hunts. It hunts in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire. Campaigners discovered that the hunt’s hounds are infected with bovine TB. There have long been complaints, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) pointed out, about poor farm hygiene and hunts feeding disease-ridden “fallen cattle” carcasses to foxhounds. The fact that 25 of that hunt’s foxhounds had to be put down because they were infected with bovine TB and a further 120 are undergoing testing is a cause for serious worry, and I have asked the Government what they will do about it.

The infection of foxhounds was not seen as a threat in the past, but few animals are free to cover and infect more territory than hounds undertaking trail hunting or chasing foxes, so this is a really serious new risk. The news has been kept quiet since December. The hunt itself suspended hunting but is apparently carrying on using visiting packs. The problem could be widespread. There are reports that some farmers have belatedly tried to protect their cattle by banning hunts from their land. Farmers local to the hunt’s kennels are refusing to let it hunt on their land. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, it is suggested that the hounds were fed raw, TB-infected meat, even though that contravenes meat hygiene rules and bovine TB controls. Do the Government believe that that is happening or there is a risk of it happening? We are all familiar with the close association that there has long been between hunts and the farming industry, and the way that hunts were used to dispose of fallen cattle. The danger seems to be substantial.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence for a new investigation into the prevalence of bovine TB among foxhounds and a case for suspending hunting until that has been proved to be a risk or otherwise. Let us put that to the test. I have recently put down many questions and had unsatisfactory answers to all of them. We now have a chance to answer the concern of the great majority of the public who do not believe that culling is an effective way of controlling bovine TB and believe it is inhumane and cruel. That is the view that the petitioners have expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I was coming on to the issue of biosecurity, which obviously has something to do with it, as do more accurate tests. There are a number of things that could help. In a spirit of constructive debate, which I hope is what this afternoon is about, I want to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister methods by which we can all help to eliminate the disease, and support the 25-year elimination programme. It is important, in the trial areas, that we eliminate TB in badgers, to prevent this cruel death. Farm biosecurity has rightly been improved, and that has been extended across the country. The Minister has, in this Government and the coalition Government, taken a number of steps to improve testing and biosecurity on farms. Examples include post-movement testing and more accurate skin tests in certain areas. All those things have a role to play; I hope we all agree on that.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

No. I did say that I was not going to give way again. Other people want to speak. By the time I finish, I will have spoken long enough and will be reprimanded by the Chair.

In other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and, I am afraid, Ireland, controlling the TB reservoir in wildlife has had a significant effect, eliminating or severely reducing the incidence of TB in cattle. Fifty per cent. of England is set to be TB-free by next year, with all 10 badger control operations achieving a successful outcome, according to the targets that have been set.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Associated British Foods is one of the great British-owned food companies. It is a world leader in sugar and it has driven competitiveness and investment in the industry. I believe that the sugar industry in this country has a great future.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Since 2010, the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been cut by 57%, which means that the Department is struggling to get out plans such as the 25-year farming plan. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Treasury to protect the budget from the 6% cut expected next week?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My Department is indeed involved in a transformation project, which will take out costs, but it will also deliver better and more focused frontline customer service. I am very optimistic about that, and we are looking very carefully at the further efficiency savings that are needed.

Future Flood Prevention

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some 453 residential properties and 174 commercial properties in York were flooded following Storm Eva, yet we know that in extreme flooding that could rise to as many as 7,200 properties. The city is therefore saying, “What is going to happen next?”

Just last month, York’s own flood inquiry produced a report containing about 90 ambitious recommendations, but no framework to govern their implementation. We need to look back on what has happened after each flood. Resources dry up, and then we do not seem to move much further forward. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), services should operate between floods, dealing not just with the issue of flooding itself but with issues of flood literacy, prevention and resilience. The fire and rescue authority would be well placed to address such issues. In that context, I was disappointed by the Government’s response to the excellent reports from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees.

The Bellwin scheme provides an immediate response, but it does not take account of the need for resilience measures to be taken during the dry seasons. I should like to hear from the Minister how the scheme could be used more proactively to provide incentives for such measures, and how the Government will work with Flood Re and the insurance industry to ensure that resilience is built into properties when the sun is shining, rather than waiting for the next floods to occur. I should also like to hear what plans the Minister has to review the Flood Re scheme. It has been in place for nearly a year, but we know that there are a number of problems. Some properties, such as leasehold properties and properties built after 2009, cannot gain access to the insurance,

We continue to call for a proper scheme for businesses, for which there is such a need. We believe that it is possible to create a matrix model for that purpose. What progress has the Minister made in considering the opportunities for such action? I know that the British Insurance Brokers Association has instituted a scheme in the interim, but businesses have still not heard about it. What is the Minister doing to promote it?

In York, emergency improvements are being made to the Foss Barrier, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). A total of £17 million is being spent on an upgrade which should have taken place over the last 30 years. I am grateful to the Minister’s predecessor for ensuring that we would be able to shift the water—50 tonnes a second—from the river should the barrier need to be used. However, people in our city are saying that more needs to be done. I am not talking about the £45 million that is being spent on building defences; I am talking about catchment management.

The Environment Agency has told me that we shall have to wait for 2021 and the next comprehensive spending review. The Government response boasts about £15 million being spent, but I must say to the Minister that that is a drop in the ocean—or in the flood water—when it comes to building resilience measures. We need proper investment, now, in mapping out catchment areas and working out what needs to be done for the future in relation to, for instance, the “slow the flow” measures. The Government have shown a lack of ambition in respect of the national tree-planting programme, but they need to think about how agroforestry can play a major role in catchment management.

I am interested in the work being done by the University of York on the management of soil and the moorlands. I urge the Minister to commit herself today to full funding of the second phase of the university’s research. Better land management is essential. More water needs to be absorbed upstream rather than running downstream.

I was disturbed to read in the Government’s response that all the action that is needed will appear in a 25-year environment plan. It would be great if we could see the plan, but it is already eight months late. Will the Minister tell us when it will be published—or have I misunderstood the title? Perhaps it refers to the 25 years that it will take to write the plan. We really do want to see what it has to say. I hope that next week’s Budget will contain measures to ensure that proper investment is made in proper catchment management now, rather than our having to wait until 2021. I trust that the Minister will move that forward.

I want to say something about governance. York was left with no plan for managing the floods, and was badly let down by the lack of action from the city council. There was also poor governance from the Environment Agency when it came to risk management. What governance structures is the Minister introducing to ensure that local authority plans are subject to professional oversight, and are risk-assessed to establish that they are robust and fit for purpose? We cannot expect local authorities to mark their own homework when lives could be put at risk. Planning for resilience is vital, and it should be done in the dry seasons. Authorities should not wait to test the plans until the rain and the floods.

I ask the Minister to tell us what further steps she plans to take now, to ensure that we have a flood-resilient nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The point about leasehold properties is that they tend to be owned by the freehold or management company, which is why they come under the commercial area. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me with more details, I will look into it.

Of course I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris)—I have met many other Members. It is good of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) to point out the role of emergency services in her area. I hope that I have answered some of the queries raised by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about businesses. I might not have answered them to her satisfaction, but I point out that Flood Re did not apply to businesses after 2009 because that was when all the rules came in to discourage building on floodplains, and we should not reward them with flood insurance as a consequence of doing that.

In answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), we have a statutory basis for the flood management plan in this country, too.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will not.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the estimates procedure.

Finally, the hon. Member for Workington will be aware that the Cumbria flood action plan was supported by many local communities. I have met, for example, the Keswick flood action group three times since becoming the responsible Minister, and I have to admit that, at times, I have encouraged a little less conversation and a little more action from the Environment Agency. It is important that we get on with some of these schemes, recognising that we are not going to please everybody with every single design. All I know is that people will be better protected than they were this time last year, and that that will continue right across the country.

I commend the estimates in the name of DEFRA to be supported in the votes tomorrow night.

Domestic Ivory Market

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again in a debate about the domestic ivory trade, Mrs Main. I thank Ellen Cobb for creating the petition, and the 107,000 people who have signed it so far. We know that they speak for the 85% of the population who want this Government to introduce a total ban on the ivory trade, but 8% of people believe that such a ban is already in place, which takes us even further into why the Government need to move on this issue.

We have seen progress in China since we last debated this issue, and I very much concur with the many Members who have talked about us now being followers rather than leaders in this movement. We must pick up the pace, because the pace around this issue is definitely picking up out there in our communities. The world is watching on in horror as these majestic, sensitive—we have heard about the way that they live in families—and beautiful animals are butchered, yet we are no further forward with the Government.

What progress has been made in the 50 days since we last debated this issue? If we take the figure of one elephant being killed every 15 minutes, nearly nine elephants have been slaughtered since this debate began, and 4,811 elephants have lost their lives since I last spoke about this issue. But this is not just about elephants; we must remember the rangers who guard those elephants, and some 17 fellow human beings have lost their lives. We are talking about the most heinous crimes, which are destroying these beautiful animals. There is much frustration across the country, as there has been in the Chamber today and as there is, I understand, in the Cabinet. People are baffled that the Government are not moving further, faster. We want the pace to pick up as a result of today’s debate—I have picked that up from every single contribution—and I trust that the Government will respond.

We all have a responsibility. We have heard how important it is for our generation to ensure that we do everything that we can on our watch to introduce a ban and ensure that it picks up pace. Non-governmental organisations have done amazing work; they have campaigned and raised awareness. It is through that awareness that we become more responsible for our actions here. I want to put on the record my thanks to them.

[Dr Cameron]

Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating Stop Ivory, which I meant to mention in my speech? It has really put this issue on the agenda and at the core of what it does, and ensured that public support is targeted and the campaign moves from strength to strength.

[Rachael Maskell]

Absolutely, Stop Ivory has done a wonderful job, as have the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the WWF, Tusk and Save the Elephants. There are so many organisations out there—I would not want to draw out one in particular—all working together, I hasten to say, because they have one objective. I think we can see that right across the House we share an objective with them to move forward on the ban.

As we have heard, what we are talking about is getting on top of criminal activity. Surely the Government’s first focus should be to get on top of what is happening, which is happening in conjunction with other criminal gangs, drug rackets and sales of arms. We know that there is an interconnection, and it is so important that we get on top of that criminal activity. A full ban is one way of bringing an end to those gangsters’ deplorable activity. From the statistics we have heard so many times in this place, we know that 200 to 300 tonnes of ivory are being stolen from elephants. That is bringing in £10 billion to £20 billion of blood money. Therefore, shamefully, we are complicit with that agenda if we are not doing absolutely everything in our power to stop the trade.

I want to come on to the consultation, which we have not seen yet, and the date of 1947. We were promised it at the last debate, but another two months have passed and we still do not have it. I know that DEFRA has so much on its agenda at the moment, not least dealing with the EU, but elephants cannot wait for those distractions. We need to put our foot on the accelerator. Let us move on today. Let us resolve in this place to move on and fast-track our approach in taking this forward.

We have seen how fast China has moved. A vaster, much more complex country than ours is talking about putting a stop to the process in just three months and putting a full ban in place in 12 months, so there is no reason why we have to spend months in consultation or thinking about consultations and what questions to ask. Let us just be honest and straight, and let us just move on. I therefore ask the Minister: why the delay on such an important issue? Can we not just get on with bringing in the ban? She will not find opposition across the House or across the country—in fact, people will get behind her. I therefore urge her to move on with that.

I want to look at the date of 1947. I believe I said in the previous debate that it is a rather arbitrary date, so why are we so rigid on that? Why do we not move forward? We have heard about the US and its 100-year rolling programme, which is perhaps one approach that could be taken, but why do we not move to a total ban? We have heard questions such as, “How can you tell what year it was bought?” Carbon dating is one way of doing that, but again I ask the Minister a question she did not manage to answer the previous time I challenged her on this point: can we tell the difference between ivory from 1946 and 1947 or from 1947 and 1948? Where the margins are so fine, why do we complicate things by drawing false demarcations rather than moving forward to a total ban? As we have heard, the human eye cannot necessarily spot the difference, as pieces of ivory are made to look more antique. We also know that paperwork can be forged. It is therefore important that we do not draw arbitrary lines and then try to justify it around the edges. We must have the courage of our convictions to say, “This is wrong,” and to move on from that.

[Victoria Borwick]

The hon. Lady is right about the difficulty of those details when something is made entirely of ivory. Of course, ivory often forms part of something else. Therefore, we often date, for example, a clock, a piece of furniture with an inlay or another decorative object on the other items. For example, it is easy to date ivory that appears in a silver teapot where it acts as the handle or an insulator. Although this debate is all about ivory—one of the reasons the date was chosen was because it is pre-convention—where ivory appears in something else, the date of the ivory can be assessed from the rest of the item.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Lady knows so much about this subject matter—[Interruption.] She denies it. There may be other contributing factors, so that still does not necessarily date the actual ivory, and that is the subject for today’s debate. We have to move on from trying to draw arbitrary lines and making judgments, either with the human eye or with carbon dating—we have had contributions about the costing of that—and say, “Why make things so complicated, when out there across the country and in this House we want a total ban?” Let us move on from that debate. Let us be really pragmatic and bring in the total ban.

[Rob Marris]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I am trying to be pragmatic. I keep pressing for the evidence. I have to say to her, with all due respect, that she is assuming what she is trying to prove, and I do not accept that as a legislator. She assumes that a total ban will save elephants. Can she give me evidence for that?

[Rachael Maskell]

If my hon. Friend will hold on for now, I will move on with my speech. I will pick up those issues. The problem is, as we argue and debate in here, the gangsters out there are laughing at us, as they are still making their millions on the back of dead elephants. To be seen to take leadership on this issue and to control the agenda, it is so important that we now move forward and see that total ban. We know that the Government promised that in their manifesto, and I have made it clear that Labour would also bring in a total ivory ban, so let us move forward on this today.

The clock continues to tick. We keep debating this issue, and I dare say that if movement is not made in the Minister’s contribution today, we will be back here again and again, and at question times, continually saying, “Let’s move forward, because there is a majority view of how we take this forward.” We cannot go back to the CITES conference or to Hanoi in 2016, or look back to what China has said. We are in 2017 and we have now got our opportunity to make our mark. I therefore urge the Minister to do that, because in 2018 I do not want the UK to be on the world stage as apologists. I want to ensure that we are proud of what we have achieved to save the elephant.

I want to pick up the point that this is not just about a total ban; there has to be a wider strategy built around that. That is right, and that goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). We have to make sure that we move forward. We have heard about the work that the Ministry of Defence is doing: the 1st Division is out there, training up people in the parks to ensure they have better security. That is part of the strategy and, as we have heard, education from the NGOs is absolutely vital, so that this generation and the next understand what is at stake.

We also need to think about what is happening with antiques, as we have heard debated today. I want to pick up the point strongly argued by the hon. Members for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and for Kensington (Victoria Borwick). I will take issue once again with calling them beautiful works of art. I am sorry, they are not. The reality is that animals have died for their production. We need to be honest about what we are dealing with. The problem is, every time these objects are glorified, value is added on to them and on to ivory. We want to see the value taken out of ivory. We do not want these items displayed as glorious parts of our heritage. It is a shameful part of our history, and we should name it as that and realise what we did in leading the world in those trades. We need to move on in the way in which we look at these pieces and name them for what they are.

Why have them on display? The Minister made an important point in the previous debate when she said that perhaps we could take them off the shelves of our museums. Perhaps that is the right way forward. I thought that was a progressive point, because that is a way of taking the value out of these items. That would be a first step in saying that they do not hold the value we have placed on them, and that would be a step forward.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I apologise for not being able to attend the debate from the beginning, Mrs Main. I entirely endorse all that the hon. Lady says about the need to clamp down on the criminals who are now killing a precious species, but what she is saying is fundamentally wrong. The value in the ivory products that came from the tomb of Tutankhamun or the royal graves at Ur, or exquisite pieces of Louis XVI furniture, is not in the ivory but in the workmanship and historic context in which they were produced. Given what she says, why, by the same token, does she not call for a ban in the trade in jewels produced from blood diamond activity—the result of the deaths of thousands of human beings, and not just elephants? How is it that we would save a single elephant by not having the 1947 cut-off?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Can hon. Members keep interventions brief? We are nearing the end of the debate.

[Rachael Maskell]

I absolutely agree. Blood stones— the fact that we have put our ideas of worth above the natural value of our fellow human beings and animals: that is wrong. The hon. Gentleman missed that very point, about the value we put on antiques versus the value of animals that will not be with us much longer, being made earlier in the debate. That is why it is vital to move on. We will mourn, on the day when elephants no longer roam the savannahs of Africa. We are now at the point when we cannot say that our values—our greed and the fact that we want those objects—are more important than saving elephants. It is important to move on and pick up the pace, rather than delaying and dragging our feet. We must put something in place now—including introducing tougher sentencing, as mentioned earlier. That is an important part of a wider package, as is getting on top of the cyber trade, and making sure that there is infrastructure for policing the elephants’ habitat.

We are dealing with organised criminality and we need to do so with the severity it deserves. Therefore let us move on. The Minister has an opportunity not to drag us forward slowly, following other countries, but to take leadership on the issue again and issue a total ban on ivory. That will make ivory pieces worthless—in the sense that the worth of the elephant will come first. I do not think that she will hear a cry from across the country if we do that. It is an opportunity to lead and I trust that the Minister will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is still shortly, and I really hope it will be as soon as possible.

With regard to the reference to CITES and appendices 1 and 2, I think that I answered this in the December debate. CITES relies on scientific evidence. There is a differentiation between appendices I and II, in terms of the extinction rating in the relevant countries. There was reliable intelligence that if what was proposed went through, reservations would be applied by certain countries, thus destroying the ban by CITES.

Laws are only as effective as our action to enforce them, and the House should be proud of its record and global leadership. Enforcement at the UK border is led by Border Force, which makes ivory one of its top priorities. That is reflected by ivory seizures accounting for 40% of seized wildlife products between 2009 and 2014. One seizure alone in 2015—this was referred to—equated to more ivory than was found in the previous 10 years put together. It was more than 100 kg of tusks, beads and bangles that was en route from Angola to Germany and it was detected here in the UK. Enforcement within the UK is supported by the specialist national wildlife crime unit, which provides intelligence, analysis and specialist assistance to individual police forces and other law enforcement agencies. DEFRA has recently provided additional funding to the unit to help it to crack down on illegal trade via the internet—a growing concern.

The UK also shares its wealth of wildlife crime expertise internationally, including in a recent project providing training to customs, police, corruption specialists and parks authorities in Malawi. That has resulted in increased arrests, convictions and custodial sentences for wildlife offences. Initiatives such as those provide a real deterrent to the perpetrators of wildlife smuggling.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I have little time. The UK is working with Interpol to expand its work with key nations, tracking and intercepting illegal shipments of ivory, rhino horn and other illegal wildlife products. Initiatives such as those will make a real impact on the illegal ivory trade by disrupting trafficking routes. Reference was made to sentencing guidelines. It just so happens that I am meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), tomorrow to discuss this matter in more detail.

The driver for poaching is the lucrative profits that can be made in trafficking ivory, which is driven by the demand for ivory products. We need to raise awareness with ivory consumers of the devastating impact that they are having on elephant populations, and ultimately change behaviour. That is why the UK has supported work in Asia to increase awareness of the brutal impacts of poaching and reduce demand for ivory. We are providing practical support on the ground with financial help, and the British military train anti-poaching rangers on the frontline in Gabon, home of Africa’s largest population of forest elephants. That will be extended to other crucial countries such as Malawi. Last year, I visited South Africa, where I saw some of the work that we were doing on other animal populations at risk.

We are supporting projects in communities that share a landscape with elephants. Many hon. Members dwelt on the role of the Foreign Office and, in particular, DFID. We recognise that the money to be made from poaching can be a huge temptation to get involved, so we must continue working closely with DFID and the Foreign Office to create viable alternative livelihoods, but hon. Members will be aware that there are tight controls on official development assistance classification.

I reiterate our shared goal of ending poaching and saving elephants. That means taking not just symbolic action on domestic ivory, but action that works. The Government are committed to introducing the most effective ban possible on ivory. That means that we must ensure that our rules are robust and proportionate and will achieve the aim of ending the poaching of elephants. We need to foster truly international action to tackle the demand that drives poaching, enforce rules more effectively and strengthen criminal justice, as well as supporting communities affected by poaching. The UK continues to be a world leader in the fight to protect wildlife, but we know that there is more to be done. Our consultation on plans for even stronger action will soon be launching. That will enable us to ensure even better protection of our majestic wildlife for generations to come.

I have listened carefully to today’s debate and, in particular, the discussion on antiques and verification; there was talk of certification and radiocarbon dating. I encourage hon. Members to contribute to the consultation and call for evidence, so that we can make progress on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would be happy to meet and discuss that issue separately with my hon. Friend, but I can absolutely assure him that we looked very carefully at this issue. As ever, there is a balance between successful sustainable farming, food productivity and what is right for our environment.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I also wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker?

Earlier this month, the Secretary of State told the Oxford farming conference how excited she was about

“scrapping the rules that hold us back”,

saying that we could all think of at least one EU rule that we would not miss. That may be true, but I am sure that each of us can also think of at least one rule that we would miss and would want to keep. Will the Secretary of State share her choice with us?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have already shared a few choices—the three-crop rule, farm inspections, some of the rules around billboards and so on. I know that the hon. Lady cares a great deal about this matter, as I do. In the great repeal Bill, we will be bringing all environmental legislation—all EU legislation—into UK law, so that, as the Prime Minister said in her speech, the day after we leave the EU, the rules will be the same as the day before we left the EU. That is really important for continuity. At that point, we will be able to look at and change those rules for the better to suit the needs of the United Kingdom.

[Rachael Maskell]

If only it was that easy. Of course, that was an incredibly vague answer—not a specific EU regulation mentioned. Those of us who value EU regulations, which set high standards for food safety, the environment and animal welfare, will not find the Secretary of State’s answer reassuring today. Of course I assume that some kind of objective criteria have to be applied and that rules and regulations are not just going to be thrown on to the Brexit bonfire on the Secretary of State’s whim. If that is correct, can she tell us what those objective criteria are?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady perhaps did not hear my previous answer. I made it extremely clear that the day after we leave the EU the rules will be the same as the day before. After that, we will be seeking to meet our twin ambitions of a world-leading food and farming industry and an environment that is better than the one we inherited. To give her one example of a manifesto commitment that Labour did not have in its manifesto, we will push for high animal welfare standards to be incorporated into international trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would, of course, be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. If we can get our diaries to work, that would be truly delightful. I would particularly like to see the success of the Pickering project, which has been one of the building blocks in securing the £15 million of funding that we announced in November last year, which is dedicated specifically to natural flood management schemes across the UK. This money will let us test new approaches to see how natural flood resources can help us in the future.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

We do not have time to waste. Since the Westminster Hall debate in December, 4,007 elephants have been killed for their tusks. With China introducing a total ban on the ivory trade by the end of this year, will the Government reconsider their proposed and unworkable partial ban, which will still result in criminals being able to trade in ivory, and will the Government move immediately to a total ban on ivory, as Labour would?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady is talking nonsense. The Government are not proposing a partial ban. At the meetings I held in China and Vietnam at the illegal wildlife trade conference last year, we were very clear that we will do everything possible not just to enforce a ban on the trading of post-’47 ivory—enforcement is absolutely key—but to minimise exemptions. The hon. Lady needs to work with us to assure the protection of the species, not make party political points about it.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If I may, as this is my first opportunity to do so, I would like to pay my personal respects to Katie Rough. Katie lived in my constituency and died tragically in York just over a week ago. The whole city has been shocked and saddened by the loss of such a precious little life. Yesterday would have been Katie’s eighth birthday, and I joined with her community in Westfield to celebrate her life alongside her parents and friends. I am sure the whole House would want Alison and Paul Rough to know that they are very much in our thoughts and prayers. May Katie rest in peace.

We live in challenging times, in which it is often difficult to see over the horizon, and yet we have a duty to steer a steady path to achieve the best outcome for our nation. The country voted to leave the European Union on 23 June, so we now have a responsibility to take the whole country forward together—the 100%— to provide economic and national security for all, and to cut deals with the EU and others to ensure that our export focus remains robust.

Seven months have passed since the vote, and negotiations are due to begin in just a couple of months’ time, so where is the plan from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? I have heard plenty of platitudes from the Conservative party. I have listened to dogmatic ideology about cutting red tape. There have been utterances about aspiration and the “fantastic opportunity” before us, but all is meaningless without even a shred of a DEFRA plan being shared. Those words no longer wash with farmers. Farmers do not work with esoteric concepts; they live in a real, tough, cut-throat and challenging world where straight talking is what matters. So where is that DEFRA plan we have been promised? Of course we should have had it before the referendum, and we continue to hear talk of the two seriously delayed 25-year plans, but farmers need a plan now, so that they can shape their agribusinesses and give them the best possible chance to succeed. The year 2020 is just around the corner and provides little security for so many.

The whole food and farming sector needs security now, security through transition and security for the long term. It is challenging enough for the farming community at the best of times. That is why so many voted to leave the EU, in the hope that surely things could not be worse, but being kept in the dark, not knowing what the Government plan to do, is even more worrying. Farmers at the Oxford farming conference showed their vote of confidence in the Secretary of State; only the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), eventually came to her rescue by putting a sole arm in the air to show support for his boss.

Farmers need clarity. The success of the food and farming industry, which we must celebrate, has been down to the sheer grit and determination of farmers in making a success of their businesses, but let us not get away from the fact that it is tough out there: incomes are falling and debts are rising. Incomes were down by a shocking 29% last year, and a fifth of farmers are struggling just to pay their bills. The average debt for a farming business is now £188,500, and too many have gone out of business altogether, including more than 1,000 dairy farmers in the last three years. Not all farmers are thriving, or even surviving.

Not every problem can be blamed on the EU. For sure, there are some regulations that farmers would happily see the back of. With 1,200 regulations to analyse, of course we would want to see some go, but rather than picking out one or two by name, the Secretary of State should first set out the strategy, and then test each regulation against the criteria, not take a piecemeal approach with no systematic logic applied. Ever since I was appointed to my brief, I have been asking how the Government will police regulations and prosecute those who breach them outside the EU framework. Answers are needed, as this will be a matter for the UK alone.

All this has little relevance, however, if the big question is not answered: what will replace the common agricultural policy? What succeeds CAP is not subject to any negotiation with the EU, so what has been agreed with the Treasury? With subsidies accounting for over half the income and investment resources of farmers, they need to know what will take its place. What will the criteria be, how will they access funding and how can they start shaping their businesses now, in line with the new criteria, so that by 2020 they can be on the firmest financial footing possible? What has the Treasury agreed? What has the Secretary of State determined?

If Labour were in power today, we would be launching our rural investment bank, and building sustainability for businesses and the environment, and resilience across farming. We would be giving farmers the stability and security they need to plan their future, along with the business support they need and the infrastructure and technological investment to drive productivity.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there are grave concerns about early pest and disease intelligence from Europe, which might become much less accessible, alongside investment in research and development, which might fall without access to EU funding?

[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.

[Philip Boswell]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the staggering fact that the Government have not incorporated at least some of the recommendations for future land management that were suggested earlier this month in a letter to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the Institution of Environmental Sciences and other professional bodies about the still foggy post-Brexit plan—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Interventions have been far too long. It is simply not fair for the hon. Gentleman to take the time of other Members who are waiting to make speeches. It is simply not courteous—no matter how important his point might appear to be.

[Rachael Maskell]

We see yet again the lack of certainty being given, so a valid point has been made.

Let me raise a further point, about apprenticeships, with the Secretary of State. I am sorry, but apprenticeships are not about simply filling unskilled labour gaps; they are about sustaining people in skills development and training in their field, so that they can have a career ahead of them. The suggestion that they will fill the posts that 80,000 workers currently hold is not appropriate and not what apprenticeships are for.

Farmers need real solutions, so why not reintroduce the seasonal agricultural workers scheme? I know that the Government scrapped it in 2013, but it would provide a lifeline to farmers now and would be far better than leaving fruit and veg rotting in fields this summer. On behalf of all farmers, especially those who may be watching and listening to us speak here today, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State finally provides a solution to this issue.

We also have a wider biodiversity system to protect. Farmers are the great conservationists of our nation. They, along with many non-governmental organisations, are the ones investing in and restoring our natural habitats, levering in environmental sustainability. With more support, they will go further still. We know that there is far more to be achieved. We cannot return to being the dirty man of Europe; nor can we stand by and sign trade deals with nations that pollute on our behalf, having no regard for soil, air or water quality. As responsible global stewards, we must stem pollution and drive forward progressive environmental standards. If the Government are pinning all their hopes on a deal with the next United States Administration, I urge them to think again.

As we debate rural communities, we cannot ignore all the other needs that they are still calling on the Government to address. As the Secretary of State said, access to broadband is an important issue, as is mobile connectivity, and rural communities are among the 5% of the population who have no access. Access to jobs, housing and transport are essential, as well as good public services. However, our ambition must go further. We must aim to halt the urban drift and rebuild rural communities, sustaining rural business and investing in new businesses, so that we pull ourselves back into the countryside and take the unsustainable strain from urban Britain. All those aims are important, and Labour Members understand how vital investment in rural communities is. No one will see a Labour Government cutting the budget for our national parks by 40%, as this Government have.

So what will the Secretary of State do? It is a shame that the Government amendment fails to recognise the unique needs of rural communities and the central role of investment in strengthening the wider economy. The huge challenges faced by rural economies require clear interventions, not complacency, and the shocking disparities between rural and urban environments must be addressed.

There is no such thing as a single, monolithic rural economy in the UK. There is great diversity, not just between communities but within them. I have focused much of my speech on farming, because that is where the challenges are most pressing, but we must remember that there is more to life in rural and coastal communities than farming and fishing alone. If the Government truly intend to deliver for rural communities, that will require a far more sustained effort than simply addressing immediate, short-term challenges in isolation. We need a proper, cross-Government strategy. This Government’s abolition of Labour’s Commission for Rural Communities and their establishment of the much-diminished policy unit in its place has weakened rural communities through a lack of both capacity and expertise.

Many of the issues that are being raised today are long-standing and cannot be blamed on the EU alone, but the turmoil that the Government are now creating through uncertainty is causing an escalating risk for this sector. Those who work across the rural landscape, or who fish in our seas, felt left behind by a Tory Government who failed to invest in their industry and their communities. That must change. With Labour, people would be confident that it would, and that farming would become far more stable, secure and sustainable.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Air Quality

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts.

While the High Court judgment on 2 November has subsequently reinforced the points made in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report, the Committee must be commended for the seriousness with which it has looked into air quality and not least for taking further evidence on Tuesday. I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the Committee have made a number of recommendations, all of which the Opposition would support or even go further on under our plan for action. I note that the Government have failed to take the advice in the Committee’s recommendations and plan, despite having had 239 days since the report was published to put a plan in place.

The Government’s buzz-phrase about leaving the environment better than they found it is already wearing very thin, as they have had six years to make significant changes in this area and have now been told to do so on three occasions by the courts—the European Court too, we must remember. The Government have been minimalistic in their response and have been told by the judiciary to think again. They have been exposed, not only in their lack of progress on improving our air quality, but in their deliberate attempts to water down improved standards for the 2030 EU directive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) mentioned. The Government sought, through their MEPs, to adjust the ceiling on emissions to give Britain “flexibility” and allowed them to “adjust their inventory” if the country looked likely to breach targets. That is a scandal, and the Government must be held to account for it.

In the light of the Brexit discussions currently taking place, the question of exactly what form of regulation we will have over our air quality in the future is extremely worrying. While we are talking about leaving the EU, we must also be cognisant of what we have heard this afternoon about China’s air quality. If we are signing up to trade deals that will pollute elsewhere around the globe, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned, we should be incredibly concerned. We must ensure that environmental measures are written into all trade deals to improve international standards.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the case of CETA—the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU—it is imperative that we build in air quality standards and compliance with the Paris standards, so that investor powers do not simply trump environmental imperatives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is really important that we demonstrate in all our international agreements and dialogue that we can lead on this agenda. I want the UK to be at the forefront, but tragically we are lagging behind.

It is remarkable that, in addition to what has happened, the Government have failed to recognise the weakness in their own plan, despite warnings from the courts to take action over poor air quality. As we have heard, they had to be dragged to the High Court again this year to defend the indefensible: a plan that sought to limit air quality improvements in just five areas outside London, when levels of nitrogen oxides in 37 out of 43 zones are exceeding European standards. We also need plans in other areas to address particulates and ammonia, as we have heard today.

The Government have consistently lacked ambition and tried to avoid their obligations to address this serious health concern. The cost is early mortality. We have heard about the 52,500 premature deaths and about the global scale of respiratory and cardiac disease, which kill 30 times the number of people killed in traffic accidents. The number of people who endure respiratory disease from air pollution has not been calculated, but that is a serious issue too. People are gasping for breath day by day. A young person with asthma, an older person with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—the suffering of those individuals cannot be overstated. I worked in respiratory medicine for 20 years and I can tell hon. Members how life-limiting such illnesses can be. We have also heard about the cost to the NHS of up to £20 billion—ten times what the Government are prepared to put into mitigation processes. The Government’s approach does not really recognise the scale of the crisis. Every life matters, and we need them to use every tool at their disposal to bring about fundamental change on their watch.

Let me welcome the Committee’s work and set out what a Labour Government would do. We would introduce a clean air Act, because we understand the urgency of the matter. We would mainstream environmental standards, not just in transport but across all Departments, and ensure that they are integrated into our industrial strategy. We heard from the Prime Minister this week that, remarkably, after six and a half years the Government have not got an industrial strategy. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the future of the car industry? As we have heard this afternoon, so many countries, including Norway, the Netherlands and Germany, are making radical changes to clean up their transport systems. They will be decades ahead of us, so it is important that we take urgent measures now. Why did the Government not intervene on their own plans when they learned about the fourfold shortfall between laboratory testing levels and real emissions, and revise their targets? DEFRA should publish the data on real-world emissions and should take seriously the Volkswagen issue, to ensure that those issues do not occur again.

A Labour Government would go further than just talking about scrappage schemes. We know that those schemes provide an economic boost and are very important, but we would also look at a retrofitting programme to give vehicles more access to opportunities to clean up their emissions, and we would put the right financial drivers in the system to achieve that. We would have clean air zones, as many of my hon. Friends have said today—not just in five areas, but right across the 43 areas. We would empower local communities, to ensure that the risk of failure is taken out of the system. We need a “can do” attitude from the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington said, not a “can’t do” attitude.

I was taken by the Select Committee’s astute comment about the “polluter pays” principle. When that principle, which is one of the core strands of the Government’s strategy, applies to buses, it is the passenger who pays, so passengers will opt to use alternative vehicles. Avoiding unintended consequences and closing loopholes is so important. That is the responsibility of the Government, but it has clearly not worked so far.

There are so many things that Labour would want to do to improve the wider strategies. We need proper investment into moving people into walk-cycle strategies, and we need to reform the public transport system, as we have heard from other colleagues. At the centre of all this is economics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury to ensure that the whole process of cleaning up our air is properly supported, and what was the result of those discussions?

I could talk about agriculture, but the Chair of the Select Committee has made such a good case already. The fact that our air is so polluted affects our whole biodiversity system. Will the Minister say when we will see the long-overdue food and farming plan? It was promised before Christmas; I hope we will see it by then.

Finally, I wish to highlight the issue of measurement. In its response to the report, the Government said:

“Access to data and information is essential to enabling informed choices to be made on the best approaches to tackling the sources of, and reducing exposure to, pollution.”

Why was the air quality monitoring budget in 2011-12 twice what it is now? Why has the number of projects dropped from 42 to 12? It is so important to monitor air pollution, especially around schools, where young people’s lungs are developing and susceptible to pollutants. We have to measure what is in our air, so I want to see that budget restored to ensure that we are taking the right measures in the right places.

Tough action could be taken to clean up our air, and would be taken under Labour. The World Health Organisation describes air pollution as a “public health emergency”. The Select Committee said that the Government have failed to take a coherent, cross-Government approach. The High Court judge said that

“the Secretary of State fell into error”.

We say to the Government: clean up your act and clean up our air. I have been so encouraged by the ambition demonstrated in the debate thus far. I trust that the Minister will build confidence with clear direction today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

Alongside giving that opportunity to local authorities, what resourcing is the Minister providing for them to take that work forward?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will be aware that elements of funding are available as part of the air quality grant programme. The sum has increased at least sixfold since the previous grant last year. If we have good enough bids, we hope to work with the Treasury to consider how we can develop that funding further.

I recently sent letters to 230 local authorities with air quality management areas, seeking updates on their plans, and on their plans to move to compliance. From the number and quality of responses that I have already received, I have been pleased to note that positive action is being taken in many places. Mid Devon District Council has taken a lead role in the region’s low emissions partnership; Rushcliffe Borough Council is taking forward a number of transport and educational initiatives, while also reducing the council’s own impacts; and Norwich City Council has recorded a significant reduction in nitrogen dioxide after improving traffic flow and introducing a new fleet of Euro 6 buses. The Public Health Minister and I have written jointly to all directors of public health to encourage them to show their influence on air quality at a local level. The Mayor of Bristol replied to my letter and I am pleased to say I will meet him next month, alongside MPs from Bristol.

There are other matters to consider, such as reducing emissions of particulate matter, which is also an important priority for me. The largest source of those emissions now is domestic solid fuel, such as wood and coal burned in open fires and stoves, the use of which has increased significantly in recent years. I am considering a range of options to address this issue, and as a first step I plan to engage with stove manufacturers and retailers to understand the issues and identify where improvements could be made, through industry-led action on cleaner appliances and fuel. In particular, one of the messages that I would like to give out before the Christmas holidays is for people to think about the choice of wood that they use when they have open fires, and to use wood with the lowest moisture possible, to reduce the production of soot and dust.

With regard to farming, our target is to reduce ammonia emissions, which have already decreased significantly over many years. However, we know there is more to do. As a first step, DEFRA recently launched a farming ammonia reduction grant, to encourage the agriculture sector to help drive reductions in ammonia emissions.

I note the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton raised on the use of fertiliser and grass feeds. DEFRA is also looking at greenhouse gas emissions, working with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to drive forward efficiency gains in the beef sector via the beef genetic improvement network.

My hon. Friend also referred to construction, with regard to non-road mobile machinery. We have worked closely with the European Union and the legislation on that area was published in September 2016.

I recognise that the decision made by Greenwich Council was unpopular with the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). According to the Mayor of Greenwich’s website, the decision was considered for call-in by the Mayor but he decided not to. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton will be aware that our right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, has committed to look further at what can be done on shipping emissions, which I am sure is good news for air quality, not only on the Thames but around the country.

My approach on this issue is not to play the blame game or pass the buck. As was pointed out, a previous Government incentivised diesel vehicles, to cut carbon. I could casually blame them, but I just do not see the point of doing so. I do not blame local councils for this matter, but alongside our national strategy we need to take local action. As I have said before, improving air quality is my top priority and a top priority for DEFRA. We are committed to improving air quality across all levels of Government, to deliver the improvements that are needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has pointed out, co-ordinated action is absolutely needed, and I can assure him that that work is under way.

In that work, we have the backing of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who just last month said to the House:

“We have taken action, but there is more to do and we will do it.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2016; Vol. 616, c. 887.]

Backbench Business

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Main. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for providing such an excellent exposition of the plight of elephants today and the causes of the mass slaughter and butchering of those majestic animals. He has been joined by many Members from both sides of the House also pleading for a total ban on the trade in ivory. That feeling does not just exist in the House; we know that 85% of the public want to see a total ban on the trade in ivory, and we heard that only 8% know that trading continues in this country. It is therefore incumbent on us to listen to the public and what they are calling for. The petition is gathering pace. It has more than 76,000 signatures, and I am sure it will have many more after today’s debate. They are calling for a total ban, not a partial ban.

I thank the NGOs for the fantastic work they do in raising awareness of this dreadful issue. Save the Elephants, the World Wildlife Fund, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Tusk and many more are ensuring that the issue is placed in our consciousness and that we know the impact the ivory trade is having. Of course, that impact is not just on the elephant community; we have heard how 1,000 of the rangers who dedicate their lives to saving those wonderful creatures have lost their lives as a result of the criminal activity we are witnessing across the globe. Progress must be made, and I trust that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, it is happening on our watch and this is our opportunity—today we will see progress from the Minister in ensuring that we go further and see a complete ban on the trade in ivory.

In preparing for today’s debate, I have been distressed to read about the mass slaughter of those wonderful animals. In the past year, 33,000 elephants were consigned to their end. For what? For greed, money and criminal activity. We have a duty to stand up for those wonderful animals. Of course, it is not just about the elephant; we have heard today about giraffes—there are now fewer than 100,000 giraffes—and about snow leopards. At the turn of the last century, there were half a million rhinos. Today, there are just 29,000. They have been traded for blood money. It is therefore incumbent on us to ensure that no more elephants lose their lives.

The clock is ticking. In the course of this debate, six more elephants will be murdered. The time for consultation is over; it is time for action, and we must start today. We need the Government to make firm commitments and to be accountable for them. The reality is that the battle is being lost. If we do not make more progress, and quickly, it will be too late and our children and grandchildren will not witness elephants in the wild. That will happen within a generation, so it is so important that we move the debate forward.

We have had opportunities on the global stage. I will not be critical—it is very difficult to bring global progress—but we have to show leadership with those opportunities. The Government have clearly made commitments, but we want to see them fulfilled, not just in the UK, but on the global stage. They should not stand back from those commitments to move forward; they should show leadership and take people along with them, whether at CITES conferences or in Hanoi.

I have spoken to the general of the 1st (United Kingdom) Division of the Army—it is based in my constituency and long may it remain there—about using our armed forces and their skill to protect elephants in Africa. We would welcome such steps because, clearly, this is a war against mass criminality. We need to take such actions and use our skills.

Can the Minister tell me the difference between ivory of 1946 and of 1948? Elephants fell to their deaths in 1946 and 1948, so what is the difference in the false demarcation of 1947? Authorities and dealers cannot tell the difference. We have heard that only carbon dating can provide the necessary identification. The demarcation is false, so why draw that line? Why not just say, “Pre-1947 and post-1947 ivory will be banned”? We will support the Government if they take that forward. We want to know from the Minister why the Government will not address the antique ivory trade. What is so different?

The remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) were objectionable. She referred to a beautifully worked piece, but it was a beautiful elephant once. She called it artwork. What is artistic about murder? Although those pieces are already in existence, they should no longer be traded. We would introduce a total ban on all ivory, with no excuses and no demarcations —a clear and simple ban. We call for leadership from the Government on this issue.

I agree with Action for Elephants UK, which states:

“The existence of a legal ivory trade serves as a cover for illegal sales of ivory, while continuing to perpetuate the cycle of supply and demand.”

We must see a ban on historical and new ivory, and I call on the Government to close the ivory loophole today and for the Minister to be bold enough to do that, on her watch and while she has the power to make the difference around the globe. Tougher penalties are needed for those who break the law and education campaigns should coincide with that, as well as an amnesty on those that possess ivory in their own homes, so that they can get rid of those products, which are not beautiful artworks but products paid for by the blood of animals.

Let us get on top of the cyber trade too. Let us get on top of the reality of the issue and see a total ban. In our time in Europe, let us use our influence while it remains to see European countries coming behind our leadership on this issue. At the moment, France is ahead of us. We know that the US, too, has tougher penalties. We have to play catch-up. We also have to listen to countries such as Botswana, where the largest elephant population lives, which is also calling for a total ban. We have to listen to those that know best.

This is not just a fight for the future of elephants and rhinos and so many animals—it is a fight against organised criminality. That is why it is so important that we as a country step up and refuse to tolerate any of it. Where there are loopholes and confusion, which is what the Government measures will bring, criminality will continue, because that is what criminals do. I ask the Minister to please join us—the 85% of people across our country and hon. Members today—and call for a total ban. It is on her watch and she has the ability to make the change. I trust she will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right—that is why I alluded to that point in the opening of my speech—but I want to make sure that we are clear in the assertions that are made. I do not recognise some of the statistics to which she refers. The general consensus is that the levels of poaching peaked in 2011 to 2013, but I agree that one poached elephant is one too many. I fully accept that.

What the overall numbers hide is the vastly different experiences across the African continent. Tanzania has been particularly hit hard by poaching, especially in the Selous region, with a reported decline of more than 60,000 elephants, which is a significant part of the population. Conversely, the experience in other parts of Africa, especially in the southern states, is of a stable or growing population. For example, in the Hwange national park in Zimbabwe, the population is growing and the Government report that they are beginning to suffer the problems of overpopulation, including habitat destruction.

The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) referred to the EU. Our Government’s view is that the large and growing elephant populations in southern Africa did not meet the clear, scientific criteria established in CITES for inclusion in appendix I of the convention. Moreover, moving those populations to appendix I would have had no impact on the status of the ivory from those four countries, or the concern that trade might resume in the future. Their existing appendix II listings have an annotation that effectively treats ivory from those countries as if it were in appendix I. Such a move could in fact have been counter-productive. It was strongly thought that Zimbabwe, Namibia and possibly more countries would have taken out a reservation against any move to appendix I. Two countries taking out such a reservation would have resulted in ivory being able to be traded without contravening CITES and so would have potentially reopened commercial trade in new ivory with immediate effect.

A range of solutions is needed to tackle the poaching crisis and CITES, which also covers both fauna and flora, is an important part of that. I recognise that this debate is about the UK ivory trade, but we should be conscious that many species were added to appendix I, including sharks and rosewood. The illegal wildlife trade covers far more than just the ivory to which we are referring today.

I assure hon. Members that the UK was an active participant in discussions to give a clear direction to close national ivory markets where they fuel poaching or illegal trade. That was an outcome we strongly endorse. There was also decisive action to strengthen national ivory action plans—I have met Ministers from China and Vietnam and we have discussed those matters—which set out clear actions for countries to combat ivory trafficking in key markets, with scrutiny of achievements by the CITES community up to and including trade sanctions for inaction.

The current global rules under CITES are that trade in ivory dating from after 1990 is banned. There is no time limit to that. To change that would require a positive decision by two thirds of the CITES parties to embrace trade in ivory, which is not a realistic prospect. The UK has already for a number of years gone further than CITES requirements. We do not permit exports of any ivory tusks, given the very obvious potential for such international trade to be used to launder recently poached ivory tusks.

The rules around what trade in ivory is permitted are only part of the story and how they are enforced is an essential element. Within the UK, the existing legal trade is enforced by the police forces and the Border Force. Ivory is a top priority for the Border Force’s wildlife trafficking team. The petition for today’s debate notes that 40% of UK customs seizures between 2009 and 2014 were ivory, which is 40% of seized wildlife products, not of all items seized by customs. Given the priority and resources that the Border Force target on intercepting illegal ivory, I would expect that to form a significant proportion of their seizures, as the evidence shows.

Border Force has run specific operations targeting ivory in recent years and Operation Quiver, which specifically targeted illegal ivory in the parcel system, won the WWF enforcement operation of the year award last month. The expertise of our Border Force team is held in high regard globally and the UK has recently been asked to lead work at EU level on enforcement action against ivory trafficking. Interpol attended CITES for the first time. I have already met my hon. Friend the Security Minister and we intend to visit the wildlife crime unit early next year to reinforce our belief that this is an important matter that must be tackled.

Within the UK, enforcement is led by various police forces and supported by the national wildlife crime unit. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has provided additional resources in this spending review period to target illegal trade via the internet, which we know is an issue of growing concern. As I say, I intend to visit the unit early next year.

Globally, the UK is a strong supporter of enforcement efforts to combat poaching and trafficking, and we committed £4 million to the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime. The five partner organisations are at the forefront of supporting global enforcement efforts. Interpol is taking an increasingly active role in the cause, and we are partnering with it to focus on intercepting illegal shipments of ivory, rhino horn and other illegal wildlife products. Through those initiatives, we will have a real impact on the volume of trafficked ivory.

The driver for poaching is, of course, the lucrative profits that can be made in trafficking ivory. I learned on my trip to South Africa that somebody can earn in one night what they could earn in five years if they did a different job. It is important to bear that in mind when we think about the economic growth and development that we should be encouraging those countries to pursue. Where possible, we should use our aid to encourage alternatives, but not every country in Africa is eligible for overseas development aid.

Poaching is driven by the demand for ivory products. We must understand and address that problem. We need to raise Asian consumers’ awareness of the devastating impact they have on elephant populations. We need to inform and engage with them, and ultimately change their behaviour. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge showed leadership when he visited Hanoi recently, alongside my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That kind of engagement is a key part of what UK leadership can do.

To achieve that, we need to change the dynamics of the market. We need to reduce not just the availability of ivory, but the acceptability of the trade. That is why in the UK we are looking at our own market. Other countries, such as the US, have taken action. We want concerted international action. Most important, we want China to take action to follow through on its commitment to close its market.

Hon. Members referred to a number of other countries, so it is worth setting out what their plans involve. The US has introduced what it describes as a near-complete ban: a prohibition on trade in items under 100 years old. That is 30 years further back than the limit we have proposed, but it is a rolling date, so it will progressively allow trade in newer items year by year. The US also included a range of exemptions from the ban, including musical instruments and items containing less than 200 grams of ivory if it is less than 50% of the overall item. Those are federal rules that apply to exports and trade between states. Trade within states is a matter for the individual states to legislate on. A small number of states, although some of them are highly populous, have adopted tighter controls along similar lines to the federal controls, but they remain the minority.

We welcome the Chinese Government’s announcement of their intention to close China’s domestic ivory market, and we look forward to hearing more detail about their intentions for the ban. Earlier this year, France announced that it will permit trade in pre-1975 ivory only on a case-by-case basis, although we and others are still seeking clarity on what the criteria for the case-by-case assessment are, so we can understand how restrictive its approach will be. We understand it intends to consult shortly to clarify the rules and exemptions.

I am proud that in September the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans for banning the sale of ivory that is less than 70 years old—dating from 1947. That is an important step. The 1947 date has its foundations in EU regulations, which still remain the overarching legislation for the implementation of CITES in the UK. From a control and enforcement perspective, there are advantages to working with a date that is already used by the rest of the EU and traders to draw a dividing line. We will consult early in the new year on our plans to implement such a ban. I am pleased that it has happened on the watch of this Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Pauline Latham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The Conservative party manifesto commitment —a commitment that I do not think Labour has ever included in its manifestos—is to press for a total ban on ivory sales, and that is part of the action that this policy fulfils.

The currently legal trade is only one part of the picture. We need a truly global response to all aspects of the problem if we are successfully to end the poaching crisis, and the UK leads the way in several of those areas. Just last week, I met CITES secretary-general John Scanlon, who commended the UK’s excellent work in leading the international illegal wildlife trade agenda and cited the 2014 London conference as a turning point for action. We provided financial and practical support to Vietnam to host the recent illegal wildlife trade conference in Hanoi, which built on the 2014 London conference, and we supported its successor in Botswana in 2016. To maintain global momentum, the UK will host the next high-level event in London in 2018.

Two years ago, we launched a £13 million fund to invest in projects around the world that tackle the illegal wildlife trade at its root. In Hanoi, the Secretary of State announced an additional £13 million to fund new measures, doubling our investment. We provide practical support on the ground. The British military trains anti-poaching rangers on the front line in Gabon, which is home to Africa’s largest population of forest elephants. That will be extended to provide training to anti-poaching rangers in other crucial countries such as Malawi. As I said, we continue to work with our partners using the UK Border Force, and the Crown Prosecution Service supports the judicial system in key states such as Kenya and Tanzania. We also support projects in Asia to raise awareness and educate potential consumers about the damage that is being done by demand for a whole range of wildlife products, including ivory.

On artworks, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made some very strong points. She seemed to commit the Labour party to banning leather products, because she suggested that anything made from animals should be banned. We need to think carefully about how artworks in museums are considered. People may not realise that the Lewis chessmen are ivory, but we should consider whether museums should continue to display ivory tusks. That is the kind of thing that we should discourage them from doing.

I need to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, so in conclusion, I can assure—

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way on the question that I asked her directly to answer?

[Dr Coffey]

Very briefly.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister explain why she will not extend the ban from 1947 to an earlier date?

[Dr Coffey]

I heard the hon. Lady’s question and I explained that, so she clearly was not listening.

To clarify, the manifesto commitment is that we will press for a total ban on ivory sales. That means acting on our domestic ivory trade and pressing for truly global and concerted action across all areas necessary to success. That means ensuring more effective enforcement, strengthening criminal justice, tackling the demand that is driving poaching, and supporting communities that are impacted by the effects of poaching. In all those areas, the Government are acting and showing true global leadership. I will ensure that, on my watch, we press on with such measures and continue to act so future generations can enjoy these majestic creatures roaming wild.