Campaign reply: Special On Line Briefing from Faith Groups next Monday - July 2021
I am grateful to constituents for inviting me to the ‘Make COP Count Coalition’ event on the 14th of June.
COP26 will indeed be a momentous event for the UK and the world. As an MP from a Christian background who cares deeply about the future state of the environment and tackling climate change issues I was pleased to learn of this event, which brought together faith groups and parliamentarians to work together to bring about the changes we want and need to see.
Unfortunately due to my commitment as the PPS to the Health Secretary I was unable to attend myself, but was able to send a member of staff to represent me on the call.
Thank you again to constituents for bringing my attention to this meaning event. They are welcome to keep me updated on similar events in the future as I will be keen to do my best to attend.
World Ocean Day - June 2021
Thank you for a copy of the campaign email regarding World Oceans Day. It is a subject dear to my heart! Our oceans have long since been something I care deeply about and on becoming an MP, involved myself in All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG’s) that focus on these and related issues. So, it has been an honour to Chair the Ocean Conservation group for many years and I continue to work closely with them others such as Greenpeace. As such, I was pleased to learn of your own interest.
As you will know, World Ocean Day was on the 8th June. There was a Westminster hall debate on this - “That this House has considered World Oceans Day 2021.” I was pleased to take part and made the following speech:
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on having secured this important debate on World Oceans Day. I count myself incredibly lucky that I have been able to see the sea from every house I have lived in, over my whole life—occasionally I had to stand on tiptoe from an upstairs window to be able to see it, but I have always lived in sight of the sea. Some of my happiest memories, both of my childhood and of raising my own family, are of days spent on or beside the water. I grew up with an amazing awareness of what an incredible place the sea and our oceans are, but also with a deep respect for them: not only are they a great place for fun, enjoyment and leisure but they contain incredible power and can, at times, do incredible damage. It is therefore absolutely right that we have this day once a year to remember our oceans and focus on them, and to remind ourselves what a major role they play in our lives and our natural environment.
The UK, as a proud island maritime nation, has always played an important role in global affairs relating to the sea, and it is right that we continue to play a global leadership role now. As others have already said, the UK cannot deal with all of the issues that affect our oceans on its own: it is going to take global co-operation, and it is good and right that the UK plays a leadership role in bringing that together. For far too many years, we tended to see the ocean as this great big dumping ground that we could pour raw sewage into and let our waste end up in, because it was big enough to cope; it would manage; the waste would not have much effect.
However, thankfully, in more recent times we have changed that view, and have come to realise the incredible damage that we were doing to our oceans. As others have mentioned, the BBC’s “Blue Planet” programmes with David Attenborough really brought home to the British public the damage we were doing, and how we needed to change our ways. I am glad that that is happening. Since I was first elected to this place in 2015, I have had the honour of chairing the ocean conservation all-party parliamentary group—which was previously called Protect Our Waves—and working particularly closely with Surfers Against Sewage and other organisations, such as the Marine Conservation Society, to continue to press in Parliament for more action.
In the time I have left, I would like to mention a couple of areas in which I believe we are making progress, but we need to go further; the first is with regard to plastics. We have all been shocked to learn just how much plastic there is in our seas and oceans. The stat that really brought that home to me, which I read some time ago, was that if we did not change our ways by the year 2050, there would be more plastic than fish in our seas. It is good to see the action that is being taken, both by Governments and by other organisations, such as the million-mile beach clean that recently took place, through which thousands of tonnes of waste were removed from our beaches. However, we cannot go on relying on beach cleans for ever. We have to address the source, and stop putting as much plastic waste into the seas. That is where a deposit return scheme will play an important part in increasing recycling rates. I am delighted that the Government are committed to that, though we are all a bit disappointed that it is going to take a year longer than we hoped. Let us take that year and ensure that we get a world-beating deposit return scheme; that it is the best we can do to increase recycling rates and reduce the amount of plastic thrown away to end up in our oceans.
The other issue I want to touch on is that of sewage discharged into our seas. It is the reason Surfers Against Sewage began their campaign 30 years ago. We have made great progress, but we still need to go much further. Raw sewage is still far too often discharged into our waterways, ending up in the sea, or is discharged directly into our seas.
I welcome the Government’s agreement to adopt new measures in the Environment Bill that will better enable us to hold water companies to account, but we need to ensure that the legislation has real teeth to hold them to account and take the necessary action to stop discharging raw sewage into our seas. I plead with the Minister to ensure that the Environment Bill enables us to do that in an effective way. I am delighted to have made this short contribution to today’s debate. Let us all continue to work together and provide global leadership, particularly in this year when the G7 summit and COP26 are being held in the UK, to ensure that we work together around the world to nurture and protect our oceans”.
ENDS.
In earlier correspondence covering related matters I provided a statement on issues around Supertrawlers. I copy it below as it is an important part of improving the way we treat our oceans:
“I have already raised the issue of Supertrawlers with Ministers and was pleased to see a statement issued by DEFRA following representations from me and no doubt many other MPs and others. I copy it below for your ease of reference:
"The UK is a global leader in the fight to protect our seas with our 'Blue Belt' of protected waters.
The Common Fisheries Policy has restricted our ability to implement fisheries management measures within offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The Fisheries Bill proposes a new power to allow the introduction of measures for conservation purposes.
The Fisheries Bill currently going through Parliament will help to protect our marine resources and develop plans to restore our fish stock back to more sustainable levels. This builds on a manifesto commitment which promised to introduce a legal commitment to fish sustainably as we become an independent coastal state once again. The Bill strengthens the MMO's powers in a variety of areas, including ensuring that they can restore and enhance, as well as conserve, the marine environment in the offshore zone, and to continue to support the delivery of the Government's Blue Belt Programme.
The Government is currently considering the recommendations of the Benyon Review into HPMAs. HPMAs are defined as areas of the sea that allow the protection and recovery of marine ecosystems.
As set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, during the transition period, we have agreed that we will continue to apply current fisheries rules and shared access to waters will continue until the end of 2020.
While we are still part of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) EU registered vessels are legally entitled to fish in our waters.
We will automatically take back control of our waters, and others' right to fish in them, at the end of 2020. For the first time in 40 years, we will be free to decide who can access our waters to fish and on what terms.
The Fisheries Bill prohibits any commercial fishing vessel (including foreign-registered vessels) from operating in UK waters without a licence. It also provides powers to attach conditions (such as the areas that can be fished, species that can be caught and the type of fishing gear that can be used) to fishing vessel licences. Foreign vessels operating in UK waters will have to follow UK rules, including the conditions that are attached to their commercial fishing licence".
ENDS.
I was pleased to release this statement recently regarding the “30by30” campaign:
“We are setting out a series of marine commitments:
Countries from all four corners of the world - from India to Guyana, South Korea to Austria have pledged to support the ‘30by30’ commitment which is being championed by the UK-led Global Ocean Alliance and the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, co-chaired by the UK, Costa Rica and France.
This next milestone follows a successful meeting of the G7 Climate and Environment ministers, during which all members agreed to champion the global ‘30x30’ target to conserve or protect at least 30 per cent of the world’s land and at least 30 per cent of the world’s ocean by 2030, as well as committing to ‘30x30’ domestically.
The UK has also launched plans to increase protections for England’s waters through a pilot scheme to designate marine sites in England as “Highly Protected Marine Areas”. The selected sites would see a ban on all activities that could have a damaging effect on wildlife or marine habitats.
This follows the independent Benyon Review, which recommended that Highly Protected Marine Areas would have an important role in helping the marine ecosystem recover. The review was commissioned in 2019 to look at how these areas could be introduced and the Government has today published its response to the review. As well as helping drive marine recovery, the review also highlighted other potential benefits of the sites, including increased tourism.
Defra and the Ocean Conservation Trust have published the results of the largest ever survey in England and Wales on public attitudes to our oceans. The survey finds that 85% of people consider marine protection personally important to them. Of those who had visited our coastlines last year, 80% said it was good for their physical health and 84% said it was good for their mental health”.
ENDS.
Sometimes the enormity of a task can overwhelm us and there is much to do regarding our oceans but progress is being made by the government. Also, I have long since acted locally, organising litter picks on our beaches which has attracted a diverse and growing group of volunteers of all ages. Their efforts do make a difference and whilst some scoff, I am keen to point out that it is not just the litter collected that makes the difference but also that it has increased public awareness and impacts behaviours on this and other related environmental issues too. I know these issues are important to you so do please join us on litter picking events. You can find all the details by subscribing to my newsletter – details on my website.
Thank you again for the copy of the campaign email.
Campaign response: Back British farming and protect our food standards - June 2021
Thank you to constituents for writing to me regarding the UK’s trade deal with Australia.
The Government’s trade agreement with Australia - the first from-scratch deal we have struck outside the EU - represents a significant milestone for global Britain and our newly independent trade policy.
I am pleased the deal will drive growth and jobs across the UK, with tariffs cut on iconic UK exports such as whisky and cars, potentially saving business more than £115 million a year. The Government expects the agreement to be particularly ambitious in services, procurement and digital trade, and consumers will benefit from lower prices on high-quality Australian products such as wine.
There are many farms in our St Austell and Newquay constituency, and I have several farmers in my family, so I fully appreciate your concerns. I have been assured that any deal the Government strikes will contain protections for our farmers, including safeguards against import surges. While I am fully confident British farmers will be able to compete, it is right that the deal will include a lengthy transition period to give farmers in both countries time to prepare for any new competition.
The Government has been clear that in all of its trade negotiations, British farming will not be undermined by unfair competition. The Government remains committed to our manifesto commitment of ensuring no compromises on our animal welfare standards, food safety, and the environment in all our trade deals. Australia has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and their meat is high quality and produced to high standards. Furthermore, there are areas, such as the banning of foie gras, that Australia is ahead of the UK, so it is right that we work with our international partners to improve animal welfare standards across the board.
It is also important to maintain perspective on this deal. Currently, Australia exports just 0.15% of its beef to the UK, as Asia is its primary export market. Furthermore, the Government’s analysis suggests that any increase in imports is more likely to displace food arriving from the EU. We already give the EU preferential trading terms, so is right we offer Australia something similar and deepen trading ties with one of our closest friends and allies.
I am also pleased this deal will give British farming more export opportunities. In particular, the agreement is a gateway into the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership (CPTPP). This free trade area in the Asia-Pacific will open doors for our farmers into some of the biggest and fastest-growing economies in the world.
The Government is right to have established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and its final report will allow the Government to advance the interests of British farmers, food producers and consumers in all of its future trade agreements.
Negotiators are now working to agree on the outstanding elements to reach an agreement in principle in June. It is right that later this year, Parliament will be given the opportunity to scrutinise the deal.
Thank you again to constituents for contacting me about this important matter. I will keep these thoughts in mind as I work with the Government to ensure all future trade deals maintain our standards, protect British farmers and represent a good deal for this country.
The Trade Bill and food standards - November 2020
The Agriculture Bill presents an amazing opportunity for our country to regain autonomy over our farming policy after 40 years of EU control. No longer dictated to by bureaucrats who do not understand our domestic interests, we can now establish our own trade system, delivering specifically for British farmers and the environment for which they so diligently care.
It is of the utmost importance that the UK upholds high standards on all our food, not only to ensure the welfare of animals and the health of the British people, but also to enable our fantastic farmers to thrive as we trade with countries around the world.
That is why I was pleased to stand on a Conservative manifesto which explicitly made clear that in all our trade negotiations we would not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. In this respect, the government is firmly on the side of British farmers and is proud to espouse such high standards, particularly in the realm of animal welfare. Far from endangering those standards, the government’s clear policy is, in fact, to increase them.
Please be assured that the government is continuing to implement a number of key measures to ensure this is the case.
The first thing to note is that our country has existing regulation concerning our import standards. This is monitored carefully by the Food Standards Agency and includes the ban on chlorinated poultry, and that on importing beef which has been produced using artificial growth hormones. These and other such standards regarding animal welfare are rigorously maintained by regulation from the FSA, independent of government.
The government has also made it clear that all Parliamentary Committees involved in scrutinising potential trade deals will be given at least ten sitting days to ensure that no standards have been breached.
This, importantly, is bookended by wider parliamentary scrutiny, where, at the end of negotiations the final agreement text will be laid in Parliament for 21 sitting days under the procedure of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. This will give more than sufficient time for MPs to examine every detail of any trade deal.
Bearing all this in mind, the reason I have voted for the Agriculture Bill, rejecting the House of Lords amendments, is because the amendments in question are very broad and provide minimal clarity above what is already enshrined in law. They would do very little to impact our food standards, and instead would oblige the government to impose an unnecessary and ill-defined set of conditions on future free trade agreements.
I understand concerns that a threat to food standards on imported goods is a threat to the ability of our farmers to compete whilst maintaining high standards of their own. However I hope the above shows that this is clearly not the case.
The amendment would also require all trading partners to have processes in place to show that they meet thousands of pages of UK domestic environmental and animal welfare legislation. The cost would be prohibitive and also unnecessary.
We import bananas from many countries including the Dominican Republic, Belize and Cameroon. We import coffee from Indonesia, Ghana and Vietnam and black tea from Kenya, all under existing EU rules.
These amendments would have meant that we can no longer import from these countries because they do not meet our own domestic environment legislation. For example stopping imports from Kenya or Indonesia because they don’t meet our carbon emission targets or follow the same laws when farmers have specific times of the year when they are allowed to cut their hedges to protect nesting birds. It is not economically or morally appropriate to expect other countries to follow exactly the same laws as us, many of which they don’t follow for economic reasons, or can’t due to simply having different a geographic make-up to the UK.
I also often have concerns raised with me about the US’s chlorinated chicken and a potential scenario where this could be sold in the UK following the passing of this Bill. But we already have a UK law banning any product other than potable water from being used to decontaminate meat. This means that currently it is illegal to sell chlorinated chicken in the UK and would remain the case unless Parliament made it legal to do so.
Finally, it is worth mentioning the key role that the Trade and Agriculture Commission has been playing and will continue to play specifically in ensuring British farmers are not out-competed by international trade. After discussions with the National Farmers Union, the Commission was established in July and has since set up three working groups covering consumers, competitiveness and standards. Out of these, the Commission recently launched a call for evidence to enquire how standards can be best maintained whilst also securing the trade benefits that this new post-Brexit season will afford. The report it is set to produce will be debated by Parliament later this term, and I look forward to continue to play my part as an MP in ensuring all aspects of our wonderful British economy can thrive.
Campaign reply - Wildlife Licencing in England - 7 September 2020
Thank you to all constituents that sent me a copy of the campaign email regarding Wildlife Licencing in England.
Following representations to ministers I have now heard from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). They take the concerns set out in the various campaign emails with wide ranging opinions and concerns seriously and have made a comprehensive response in a “Dear Colleague” letter sent to all MPs, which I copy below.
My view is that all views have been heard and will be taken into account going forward.
Letter from DEFRA:
Licensing for legal control of wildlife in England I am writing to provide you with an update on Defra’s review of general licences to control certain wild birds, as well as some related issues around licensing for European sites, gulls and stoats. Tony Juniper is also writing to you regarding Natural England’s individual licensing application process this year. You may be aware that the Countryside Alliance, Moorland Association and National Gamekeepers’ Organisation published a report and wrote to me recently setting out their concerns on these topics.
All wild birds are protected by law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Natural England operates a system of licensing for lethal wild bird control for essential purposes such as protecting public health and safety, conservation, and preventing serious damage to crops and livestock. This system ranges from ‘general licences’ to ‘individual licences’. General licenses cover some lethal wild bird control activities where users do not need to apply for a licence but must operate within the terms and conditions of the published general licence. Individual licences cover lethal wild bird control activities which require greater control and so anyone wishing to carry these out must apply to Natural England individually. Last spring, following a legal challenge by Wild Justice which led Natural England to revoke three general licences for the lethal control of wild birds, one of my predecessors decided to take responsibility for granting the relevant general licences under s16(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. He considered it appropriate to take over this function, recognising the scale of interest and concern that had been generated by the decision to revoke. Defra issued new interim general licences on 14 June 2019, and launched a review to inform longer-term licensing arrangements.
The review has made significant progress, however additional time is needed to thoroughly analyse the evidence, and to fully develop a general licensing solution for protected sites. Defra is committed to achieving a general licensing regime for wild birds
which is both robust and workable for users, ensuring that longer-term licensing arrangements are informed by the best available evidence. I am therefore reissuing six general licences for the control of wild birds on a temporary basis ahead of new licences coming into force on 1 January 2021. The current licences GL26, GL28, GL31, GL34, GL35 and GL36 will be reissued from 1 August to 31 December. No action is required by licence users, beyond the ongoing requirement to act in accordance with the licence conditions.
Defra intends to publish new licences in November to allow user groups to become acquainted with the changes before they officially come into force on 1 January.
Licensing in and around European sites The report raises a number of issues about European sites.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“Habitats Regulations”) governing these sites require us to take a precautionary approach to their protection. When Defra launched its general licences in June 2019, we needed to ensure that this approach was taken, while not incurring lengthy delays to the launch of the licences. NE had produced a strategic Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), assessing through that process that the general licences could be used for European sites if a set of precautionary conditions were applied to general licence activity on those sites, on the basis that those conditions would pass the strict legal test of allowing a conclusion of no adverse impact on site integrity from this activity. My officials discussed these precautionary conditions with stakeholders, who were strongly opposed to this approach. The alternative was to exclude all sites and surrounding 300m buffer from the general licence and to regulate through individual licence from Natural England, which is what we did following stakeholder feedback.
The current situation is an interim position while we conclude our review, as part of which we are working towards a general licence solution for European sites. With Natural England, we are using the HRA process to systematically identify those sites where general licences are likely to have a significant effect on the features of interest. In these sites, assessments under the HRA process enable us to identify the additional measures or conditions required to ensure that there is no impact on those vulnerable species from activity carried out under the general licence. We have also commissioned an independent review of the evidence on buffer zones which will inform our approach in the new general licences. We met stakeholders on 2 April to outline this approach and discussed it further with them in a workshop on 17 June. Gull licensing
In 2019, herring gull and lesser black-backed gull were removed from Defra’s general licences due to their red and amber conservation status respectively and their control was authorised by individual licence. In November 2019, Natural England requested a policy
steer from Defra. Licences for the lethal control of bird species naturally occurring in a wild state in Europe must not be detrimental for the conservation status of the species in question. Analysis by Natural England specialists pointed to the need for a substantial reduction in the scale of lethal control of gulls in rural areas compared to current levels because of their conservation status. To manage this change, Natural England requested a steer on prioritising applications on the basis of a hierarchy of the need that each application addressed. My predecessor approved a hierarchy approach whereby Natural England gives priority to air safety and public health and safety above other licensable purposes, whilst retaining the ability to assess the individual merits of licensing applications as required. The report questions the decision to limit licences on the basis of uncertainty around the abundance of the gull populations involved. Strong evidence from well monitored rural gull colonies indicated that in rural areas gull numbers are declining and population levels are of concern, therefore Natural England needed to reduce licensing levels in those areas so that it could be confident of not harming populations. In urban areas, we know that lesser black-backed and herring gulls have expanded their distribution in England, but not the extent to which overall abundance has changed. A survey of urban populations is now being undertaken to address this information deficit, which will inform future licensing of these gull species.
Individual licence issues in 2020 As a result of the policy decisions discussed above, wild bird control on and near European sites and lethal control of gulls have been via individual licence this year. I appreciate the frustrations expressed in the report regarding individual licensing, and I am working closely with Natural England to ensure that these issues are sorted as quickly as possible. The stakeholder report calls for a feasibility study into Defra taking back control of individual licensing from Natural England. While I recognise stakeholder frustration around the individual licence process this year, Natural England is England’s statutory nature conservation body and has the right specialist expertise and site-based knowledge to make licensing decisions. Defra and Natural England are committed to achieving a licensing regime for wild birds which is both robust and workable for users. Our review is seeking to achieve this based on extensive evidence review and consultation with stakeholders. Stoat trapping licences The Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019 amend section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) to prohibit the trapping of certain species, including stoat, except where a licence has been issued for specific limited purposes under section 16 of the Act. The purpose of this is to regulate the use of traps so that only those which meet international humane trapping standards can be used. The Regulations do not introduce a general prohibition on killing or taking for this species.
Defra and Natural England welcome the involvement of stakeholders in the drafting of the licences, which on publication they publicly affirmed were workable. They now raise further concerns but we believe that the burdens they highlight are unlikely to constrain stoat trapping. We believe that the general licences do not curtail trapping activity and allow for stoat control where it is required. If stakeholders have evidence that stoat control is required in other circumstances (e.g. for the conservation of other species of wild birds, or to protect other types of livestock), then Natural England have said that they will consider this evidence.
Campaign reply - Hen Harriers
Thank you to all of you who sent me a copy of the campaign email regarding hen harriers.
There is concern that hen harriers have suffered from illegal practices and whilst I acknowledge those concerns it is important to recognise that there is existing regulations already in place to protect not just hen harriers but all wild birds.
All wild birds are protected by law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is therefore incumbent on all of us that any illegal activity is reported to the appropriate authorities.
I have made representations to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) over the years regarding a range of similar issues. DEFRA have responded with a “Dear Colleague” letter addressed to all MPs setting out their proposals and reviews which I copy below. I have no doubt that the issue you raise has been taken seriously:
Licensing for legal control of wildlife in England I am writing to provide you with an update on Defra’s review of general licences to control certain wild birds, as well as some related issues around licensing for European sites, gulls and stoats. Tony Juniper is also writing to you regarding Natural England’s individual licensing application process this year. You may be aware that the Countryside Alliance, Moorland Association and National Gamekeepers’ Organisation published a report and wrote to me recently setting out their concerns on these topics.
All wild birds are protected by law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Natural England operates a system of licensing for lethal wild bird control for essential purposes such as protecting public health and safety, conservation, and preventing serious damage to crops and livestock. This system ranges from ‘general licences’ to ‘individual licences’. General licenses cover some lethal wild bird control activities where users do not need to apply for a licence but must operate within the terms and conditions of the published general licence. Individual licences cover lethal wild bird control activities which require greater control and so anyone wishing to carry these out must apply to Natural England individually. Last spring, following a legal challenge by Wild Justice which led Natural England to revoke three general licences for the lethal control of wild birds, one of my predecessors decided to take responsibility for granting the relevant general licences under s16(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. He considered it appropriate to take over this function, recognising the scale of interest and concern that had been generated by the decision to revoke. Defra issued new interim general licences on 14 June 2019, and launched a review to inform longer-term licensing arrangements.
The review has made significant progress, however additional time is needed to thoroughly analyse the evidence, and to fully develop a general licensing solution for protected sites. Defra is committed to achieving a general licensing regime for wild birds which is both robust and workable for users, ensuring that longer-term licensing arrangements are informed by the best available evidence. I am therefore reissuing six general licences for the control of wild birds on a temporary basis ahead of new licences coming into force on 1 January 2021. The current licences GL26, GL28, GL31, GL34, GL35 and GL36 will be reissued from 1 August to 31 December. No action is required by licence users, beyond the ongoing requirement to act in accordance with the licence conditions.
Defra intends to publish new licences in November to allow user groups to become acquainted with the changes before they officially come into force on 1 January.
Licensing in and around European sites The report raises a number of issues about European sites.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“Habitats Regulations”) governing these sites require us to take a precautionary approach to their protection. When Defra launched its general licences in June 2019, we needed to ensure that this approach was taken, while not incurring lengthy delays to the launch of the licences. NE had produced a strategic Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), assessing through that process that the general licences could be used for European sites if a set of precautionary conditions were applied to general licence activity on those sites, on the basis that those conditions would pass the strict legal test of allowing a conclusion of no adverse impact on site integrity from this activity. My officials discussed these precautionary conditions with stakeholders, who were strongly opposed to this approach. The alternative was to exclude all sites and surrounding 300m buffer from the general licence and to regulate through individual licence from Natural England, which is what we did following stakeholder feedback.
The current situation is an interim position while we conclude our review, as part of which we are working towards a general licence solution for European sites. With Natural England, we are using the HRA process to systematically identify those sites where general licences are likely to have a significant effect on the features of interest. In these sites, assessments under the HRA process enable us to identify the additional measures or conditions required to ensure that there is no impact on those vulnerable species from activity carried out under the general licence. We have also commissioned an independent review of the evidence on buffer zones which will inform our approach in the new general licences. We met stakeholders on 2 April to outline this approach and discussed it further with them in a workshop on 17 June.
Gull licensing
In 2019, herring gull and lesser black-backed gull were removed from Defra’s general licences due to their red and amber conservation status respectively and their control was authorised by individual licence. In November 2019, Natural England requested a policy steer from Defra. Licences for the lethal control of bird species naturally occurring in a wild state in Europe must not be detrimental for the conservation status of the species in question. Analysis by Natural England specialists pointed to the need for a substantial reduction in the scale of lethal control of gulls in rural areas compared to current levels because of their conservation status. To manage this change, Natural England requested a steer on prioritising applications on the basis of a hierarchy of the need that each application addressed. My predecessor approved a hierarchy approach whereby Natural England gives priority to air safety and public health and safety above other licensable purposes, whilst retaining the ability to assess the individual merits of licensing applications as required. The report questions the decision to limit licences on the basis of uncertainty around the abundance of the gull populations involved. Strong evidence from well monitored rural gull colonies indicated that in rural areas gull numbers are declining and population levels are of concern, therefore Natural England needed to reduce licensing levels in those areas so that it could be confident of not harming populations. In urban areas, we know that lesser black-backed and herring gulls have expanded their distribution in England, but not the extent to which overall abundance has changed. A survey of urban populations is now being undertaken to address this information deficit, which will inform future licensing of these gull species.
Individual licence issues in 2020 As a result of the policy decisions discussed above, wild bird control on and near European sites and lethal control of gulls have been via individual licence this year. I appreciate the frustrations expressed in the report regarding individual licensing, and I am working closely with Natural England to ensure that these issues are sorted as quickly as possible. The stakeholder report calls for a feasibility study into Defra taking back control of individual licensing from Natural England. While I recognise stakeholder frustration around the individual licence process this year, Natural England is England’s statutory nature conservation body and has the right specialist expertise and site-based knowledge to make licensing decisions. Defra and Natural England are committed to achieving a licensing regime for wild birds which is both robust and workable for users. Our review is seeking to achieve this based on extensive evidence review and consultation with stakeholders. Stoat trapping licences The Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019 amend section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) to prohibit the trapping of certain species, including stoat, except where a licence has been issued for specific limited purposes under section 16 of the Act. The purpose of this is to regulate the use of traps so that only those which meet international humane trapping standards can be used. The Regulations do not introduce a general prohibition on killing or taking for this species.
Defra and Natural England welcome the involvement of stakeholders in the drafting of the licences, which on publication they publicly affirmed were workable. They now raise further concerns but we believe that the burdens they highlight are unlikely to constrain stoat trapping. We believe that the general licences do not curtail trapping activity and allow for stoat control where it is required. If stakeholders have evidence that stoat control is required in other circumstances (e.g. for the conservation of other species of wild birds, or to protect other types of livestock), then Natural England have said that they will consider this evidence.
Campaign reply - Help make five-year sentences for animal cruelty a reality
Thank you for contacting me with a copy of the campaign email about animal cruelty and The Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill.
As an animal lover myself I will continue to promote animal welfare for I share much of the concerns expressed and disgust over the way some people treat animals. This has been raised before and I know how passionately some feel. Over the years I have responded to several similar campaigns and as such I set out again my view on this:
“Animals are mentioned many times in the Conservative manifesto and as an animal lover I welcome the actions proposed. The document sets out :
Animal Welfare:
- High standards of animal welfare are
one of the hallmarks of a civilised
society. We have a long tradition of
protecting animals in this country,
often many years before others follow.
Under a Conservative Government, that
will continue – and we will continue to
support such efforts overseas.
- We will introduce tougher
sentences for animal cruelty.
- We will crack down on the illegal
smuggling of dogs and puppies.
- We will bring in new laws on animal
sentience.
- We will end excessively long
journeys for slaughter and fattening
– one of the many benefits of
leaving the European Union.
- We will bring the ivory ban into
force and extend it to cover other
ivory-bearing species, and ban
imports from trophy hunting of
endangered animals.
- We will ban keeping primates as pets.
- We will bring forward cat
microchipping, giving cat owners
peace of mind and increasing the
measures we have available to tackle
I have already led a Westminster Hall debate calling for banning of live animal export for slaughter and will continue to support legislation that improves the lives of animals and was delighted to hear the Prime Minister make reference to banning this during Prime Ministers Questions”.
When the bill comes back to Parliament, I will continue to support it and speak up for animals.
Thank you again for sending me a copy of the campaign email.
Campaign response: Support a stronger environment bill for clean air in St Austell and Newquay
Thank you to constituents for their emails regarding the importance of ensuring that our air quality continues to improve and the opportunities that the Environment Bill presents.
Breathing clean air is of fundamental importance to us all and particularly so for those who have existing lung and other underlying health conditions that are aggravated by poor air quality.
The government has made announcements on how they intend the UK to lead the world in seeing our environment protected and cleaned up – and not just air pollution.
For instance, some time ago, it announced the banning of the sale of conventionally powered cars by 2040. Electric cars with zero emission at point of use will rapidly become the norm. There are 19 or so new models being launched this year in the UK and so I am confident that we will see the demise of polluting cars far sooner than 2040. This alone will have an enormous impact on air quality where transport makes up roughly one third of air pollution.
The Environment Bill will deliver cleaner air for all, by requiring the government to set two targets on air quality, including for fine particulate matter, the most damaging pollutant to human health, by October 2022:
the first is to reduce the annual average level of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in ambient air – this will deliver substantial public health benefits
the second air quality target must be a long-term target set a minimum of 15 years in the future, which will encourage long-term investment and provide certainty for businesses and other stakeholders
Councils and other relevant public bodies will be required to work together more closely to tackle local air quality issues and it will be easier for local authorities to enforce restrictions on smoke emissions from domestic burning, which pollutes our towns and cities. The government will also be required to regularly update its National Air Quality Strategy.
The Bill also gives the government the power to make vehicle manufacturers recall vehicles if they do not comply with relevant environmental standards, ensuring illegally polluting vehicles are taken off the road quickly.
This legislation has been debated thoroughly by a committee of MPs. In March the bill committee had the opportunity to debate and vote on amendments that would have bound the government to reduce the concentration of small particulate matter (PM2.5) to “less than or equal to 10µg/m3” by January 2030.
MPs ultimately voted against the amendments and I note Minister Rebecca Pow’s helpful response, providing reassurances of the government’s firm commitments to improve air quality
“It would not be appropriate to adopt a level and achievement date… without first completing a thorough and science-based consideration of our options.
“If we set unrealistic targets, it could lead to actions that are neither cost effective nor proportionate. That is why we are committed to an evidence-based process using the best available science – something I know the shadow minister is really keen we do – and advice from experts to set an ambitious and achievable PM2.5 air quality target.”
Indeed, once we leave the Brexit implementation period, we will be free to set our own rules and regulations and not be bound by EU regulation, which currently falls short of WHO rules and standards. I welcome this as a further excellent reason why we need to leave the EU.
Minister Pow also reminded parliamentary colleagues that the government would consider new evidence on its environmental targets as part of “the five-yearly review of our environmental improvement plan and its annual progress report”. She likewise pointed to the scrutiny of the Office for Environmental Protection as another tool for ensuring the UK’s air quality targets would be appropriate.
I note the points that constituents have made and will bear them in mind going forward, as I continue to support the government’s ambitious but also achievable approach towards improving air quality.
Campaign response: EDM 50
Recently a number of constituents have been in touch regarding EDM 50 which calls for a ban on the import of hunting trophies into Britain.
As a principle I never sign early day motions as they very rarely achieve anything whilst at the same time running up costs to the taxpayer.
However that is not to say I do not have sympathy with constituents’ concerns.
Animals were mentioned many times in the 2019 Conservative manifesto and as an animal lover I welcome the actions proposed. For instance, it mentioned “We will bring the ivory ban into force and extend it to cover other ivory-bearing species, and ban imports from trophy hunting of endangered animals.”
In recent times trophy hunters have come under significant scrutiny in social media and other platforms. There is clearly a growing sense of disquiet of certain aspects of this “sport”.
Whilst as a conservative I am at heart against the banning of things, I believe legislation around trophy hunting could be looked at further, not least because there has been a firm commitment expressed in the Conservative manifesto.
Now we have left the EU we will of course be free to make our own laws on import again and that will serve this cause and the nation very well on all manner of matters.
Campaign response: EDM 135
Thank you for constituents’ emails concerning EDM135 which expresses support for a ban on the use of whip in horse racing.
As a principle I never sign early day motions as they very rarely achieve anything whilst at the same time running up costs to the taxpayer.
This industry is already one of the most heavily scrutinised in the world and quite rightly so as all animals should be treated appropriately. However sometimes there are campaign groups seeking to introduce ever more draconian regulation as a disguised attempt at a total ban on horse racing. As a Conservative, I do not believe in banning things in general.
As a family we have been horse owners and lovers and so animal health, welfare and their treatment is always of interest.
During a recent Westminster hall debate the Minister did take note of many points raised over the concerns for racehorses . It is also worth noting that the debate itself was an invaluable tool in raising awareness amongst MPs and the public around racehorse welfare and treatment. That has the effect of influencing decision-making in Government and Parliament.
I firmly believe these debates makes all interested parties take note and the British Horseracing Authority will no doubt review all its' procedures if only to ward off possible punitive legislation. My own view is that I am generally against banning things and over legislating. However, this is a matter I can raise with Ministers when I see them.
Campaign response: HS2 Betrays Us All; StandForTheTrees Campaign
Thank you to constituents who have contacted me regarding HS2.
The government’s commitment to see the UK economy at net carbon zero by 2050 is world leading and dynamic and has my full support.
There have not been any new lines built (other than the Euro tunnel link) outside of London for a hundred years. The Victorians were very good at building the lines we still use today but they are now beyond capacity, particularly going North. A mix of freight, local stopping trains and express services all sharing the same line causes problems and delays which will only escalate with demand. Trying to upgrade those lines would cause massive disruption and weekend line closures estimated at lasting for 29 years – and it would not solve the underlying issue of capacity. So, a new line is needed and the difference in cost between a new line and a highspeed one is marginal. Further, it may as well be a fast one which uses the latest technology.
Train travel is among the most environmentally friendly travel options and it seems odd for any environmentalist to oppose it.
HS2 Ltd have taken more care and trouble over the routes and the impact it has than any other railway ever built in the UK and possibly in the world. They care. They are obliged to under the remit given.
For instance, HS2 has focused on the "green corridor" which will deliver the project that "respects" the natural environment. That covers all manner of issues besides trees, but it demonstrates the care and trouble being taken. Also, it has taken great care to move animals, such as the Great Crested Newt, away from the line and created new habitats.
On trees, HS2 will plant seven million new trees - a mix of species including holly, hazel, dogwood and oak. This is double the number that might be felled.
The economy is of course going to feel the fallout of the pandemic and once we are through this the government no doubt review expenditure in many areas. One of the ways to boost the economy is to continue to invest in our infrastructure and that includes the prospect of improving road and rail links both locally and nationally.
Campaign reply - Supertrawlers - 26 August 2020
Thank you to those constituents who sent me a copy of the campaign email regarding concerns over supertrawlers, which I read with interest.
Our oceans, the environment, our fishermen, and matters related have long since been an active concern of mine and I have been pleased to champion and petition ministers accordingly over the years. My work as Chair of the Ocean Conservation APPG continues as it has done with others such as Greenpeace. So I was pleased to learn of your own interest.
I have already raised the issue of Supertrawlers with Ministers and was pleased to see a statement issued by DEFRA following representations from me and no doubt many other MPs and others. I copy it below for your ease of reference:
"The UK is a global leader in the fight to protect our seas with our 'Blue Belt' of protected waters.
The Common Fisheries Policy has restricted our ability to implement fisheries management measures within offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The Fisheries Bill proposes a new power to allow the introduction of measures for conservation purposes.
The Fisheries Bill currently going through Parliament will help to protect our marine resources and develop plans to restore our fish stock back to more sustainable levels. This builds on a manifesto commitment which promised to introduce a legal commitment to fish sustainably as we become an independent coastal state once again. The Bill strengthens the MMO's powers in a variety of areas, including ensuring that they can restore and enhance, as well as conserve, the marine environment in the offshore zone, and to continue to support the delivery of the Government's Blue Belt Programme.
The Government is currently considering the recommendations of the Benyon Review into HPMAs. HPMAs are defined as areas of the sea that allow the protection and recovery of marine ecosystems.
As set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, during the transition period, we have agreed that we will continue to apply current fisheries rules and shared access to waters will continue until the end of 2020.
While we are still part of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) EU registered vessels are legally entitled to fish in our waters.
We will automatically take back control of our waters, and others' right to fish in them, at the end of 2020. For the first time in 40 years, we will be free to decide who can access our waters to fish and on what terms.
The Fisheries Bill prohibits any commercial fishing vessel (including foreign-registered vessels) from operating in UK waters without a licence. It also provides powers to attach conditions (such as the areas that can be fished, species that can be caught and the type of fishing gear that can be used) to fishing vessel licences. Foreign vessels operating in UK waters will have to follow UK rules, including the conditions that are attached to their commercial fishing licence".
ENDS.
The majority of our constituency has always supported leaving the EU and one of the many benefits will be the right to control our own fishing waters again for the first time in forty years. I take this opportunity to thank again all who both supported and voted to leave the EU and I see the actions that DEFRA are now free to take as further evidence (if any were needed) that the UK is benefiting from the decision to leave in many more ways than has been fully recognised. I also thank those who have been in touch stating that whilst they voted to remain in the EU they endorse and support the decision to go.
Campaign reply - Agriculture Bill - 1 July 2020
Thank you to those constituents who have sent me copies of campaign emails raising concerns around the Agriculture Bill currently going through Parliament.
I appreciate the interest and concern that this issue has raised – after all what could be more important than the safety and quality of the food we eat. I welcome the Government’s unambiguous and clear commitment that any future trade agreements must uphold the UK’s high levels on matters such as animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection. The EU Withdrawal Act transferred all existing EU food safety provisions into UK law. The government has gone to considerable trouble to make clear that these standards will not be lowered during any trade deal negotiations.
On 24 June The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Secretary of State for International Trade, emphatically stated that a ban on importing chlorinated chicken was “already in UK law” and that the country “will never lower our standards in order to sign a trade deal”. She could not have been clearer. Reports to the contrary are spurious and mischievous.
She also said there is “no deadline for an agreement.” She will get the deal we all want to see regarding food standards or not at all. In the House of Commons Trade Select Committee, she said there had been “a lot of scaremongering” over trade negotiations in an attempt to worry consumers.
As if further proof were needed it has been widely reported in the media that Lord Price, who was once managing director of Waitrose and now trade minister, said: “People are either wilfully, or out of a degree of misunderstanding or naivety, making a completely false assumption — that our secretary of state can go to a foreign country and get a deal that means goods not meeting British standards can be imported and legally sold. That’s just not the case.”
Ministers have continued their dialogue with interested parties including the NFU. In a joint letter from Elizabeth Truss and The Rt Hon George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for International Trade Secretary of State for the Environment, & President of the Board of Trade Food and Rural Affairs, they announced the formation of a trade and Agricultural Commission. This has been welcomed by many stakeholders and I whole heartedly support this as it goes even further to underline the government’s commitment on the various concerns expressed.
Here is a copy of the letter as sent to all MPs and widely published elsewhere:
'Formation of Trade and Agriculture Commission
Any trade deal the UK strikes must be fair and reciprocal to our farmers, and must not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. We have been clear on these points and will continue to fight for the interests of our farming industry in all trade agreements we negotiate.
We are pleased therefore, on behalf of the Government, to agree in principle to the establishment of a Trade and Agriculture Commission under Department for International Trade auspices. The Commission’s terms of reference will be published in due course.
This is the first time in over 40 years that the UK has pursued its own independent trade policy. In forming this Commission, we will ensure the importance of close engagement with the agriculture industry to help inform, shape and guide agricultural trade policy, so that this is recognised throughout our trade negotiations.
The Commission will not be another quango or regulator, and its role will be strictly time-limited. Once the Commission has finished its work, it will produce a report in line with its terms of reference that will be presented to Parliament by the Department for International Trade. Its recommendations will be advisory only.
Support for this Commission has come from the National Farmers’ Unions in England, Scotland and Wales, as well as from Northern Ireland’s Ulster Farmers’ Union.
The report, and the work of the Commission, will focus on four areas:
1. What policies the Government could adopt in free trade agreements to ensure UK farmers do not face unfair competition and that their high animal welfare and production standards are not undermined. 2. How best to reflect both consumer interests and those of developing countries. 3. How the UK engages international organisations to advance higher animal welfare and environmental protection standards across the world.
Rt Hon George Eustice MP Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF
4. How trade policy identifies and opens up new export opportunities for the UK agriculture industry – in particular for small and medium sized businesses – that benefit the UK economy as a whole.
We look forward to continuing to work constructively with colleagues in this area.
ENDS.
The UK’s food standards, for both domestic production and imports, are overseen by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. These are independent agencies and provide advice to the UK and Scottish governments. They will continue to do so in order to ensure that all food imports comply with the UK’s high safety standards. Decisions on these standards are a matter for the UK and will be made separately from any trade agreement.
The best way we can ensure the wellbeing of everyone in all our communities, is to see the UK free at last again to trade across the globe, without the shackles of the EU. Whilst change always brings challenges (and there will be some along the way), I firmly believe we will have a better brighter future, with more trade opportunities. A prosperous nation can afford the health care and healthy lifestyles and diets we want for everyone.
The Government is determined to ensure that our future trade agreements will deliver benefits for our brilliant farmers and food producers. Cornwall produces some of the finest food in the world and as we commence our new journey, free to trade once again across the globe, I am confident that our famed food and drink will find many new markets boosting demand whilst seeing our home market protected with appropriate legislation.
I welcome the vital role migrant labour plays both in our communities and as part of the workforce. I fully recognise the importance of farmers being able to recruit migrant labourers to fill shortages and with the help from the local NFU adviser, I was able to meet with farmers in mid-Cornwall to discuss their concerns on the potential shortage of seasonal workers and relay them to ministers at DEFRA and the Home Office. I was of course pleased to welcome the launch of the SAWS pilot in 2018 and again when the quota quadrupled from 2,500 to 10,000, and it seems clear that the Government now has a better understanding of the importance of seasonal work.
I also spoke in the Immigration Bill’s Second Reading raising the issue of the importance of role migrant labour to farmers - and also the leisure industry.
On investment and the so called “EU funding” in the Duchy, the EU does not have any money, only the funds we send them of which we receive a portion back – a crazy middleman scheme we will shortly be able to jettison. Instead we will have The Shared Prosperity Fund. It will replace cumbersome EU funding, be far better targeted and easier to administer.
Trade talks have already formally opened with the US following wide ranging consultation. Ahead of negotiations, the Government set out negotiating objectives, as well as a response to the public consultation and an initial economic assessment. A similar process will be replicated in the coming months, as the government lays out detailed proposals for deals with Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
On the matter of food security, our landmark Agriculture Bill sets out that, for the first time, the Government will have a duty to take a regular, systematic view of our overall food security, at least every five years, giving us enough time to observe key trends from a variety of sources. Ministers have highlighted that they will not wait to publish the first report.
For all of these reasons I did not support the various amendments tabled as requested by some of you. I am very clear that the amendments are unnecessary not least because of the promises made at the last election and the confidence I have in ministers to deliver on such. Food and safety standards will not be dumbed down to get a trade deal. With anyone.
I hope that the above reassures you that we are committed to maintaining our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. We are a world leader in these areas and that will not change.