Red Tape Challenge

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As part of the Government’s red tape challenge initiative, DEFRA will complete this Parliament an ambitious programme of reform to improve and simplify its regulation. These reforms will reduce regulatory costs to business by around £300 million per year, thus helping to promote growth, while maintaining our high standards of environmental, animal and plant health protection.

In total, 650 legislative reforms will have been made which will reduce the number of regulations in force by more than 20% compared to May 2010. I am today placing a full list of these legislative reforms in the Libraries of both Houses.

Reforming the amount of guidance that accumulated over many years has also been an important priority. In May, DEFRA and its regulator network will have reduced their guidance by more than 70,000 pages, which is a reduction of over 80%. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses the current impact assessment to support this reform.

All DEFRA’s legislation in force is now accessible to the public via DEFRALex, an online portal on legislation.gov.uk/defralex. This is designed to make legislation more accessible and easier to locate by businesses and the public.

[HCWS477]

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 16 March in Brussels. Rebecca Evans AM and Richard Lochhead MSP were also present.

There were only agriculture items on the agenda.

Organic production and labelling of organic products

The Council held an orientation debate on the proposal for a regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products. Most member states agreed that good progress had been made. Austria and the Netherlands, however, repeated their calls for the proposal to be withdrawn, arguing that it would hinder rather than support development of the organic sector. I, along with a number of other member states, argued for the removal of the requirement for annual physical inspections in favour of a risk-based approach. I also stressed that the Commission’s proposal to move to an import regime based on compliance with EU rules should not impact negatively on developing countries and that a significant transition period should be included. The presidency confirmed work on the proposal would continue with the aim of reaching a Council position in May.

Milk Sector: market situation, trends and EU measures

The Council discussed the milk sector focusing on the market situation, trends and EU measures. Poland stressed that its producers were finding the current market situation tough and France and Spain repeated their request for the Commission to consider stronger crisis management tools. I stressed that further work was needed to identify and develop new markets and urged the Commission to come forward with its feasibility study on dairy country of origin labelling as soon as possible. Commissioner Hogan acknowledged the difficulties in some parts of the sector but expressed optimism about global demand in the future. He also said he would consider suggestions for broadening the scope of the Milk Market Observatory.

CAP implementation and simplification

Commissioner Hogan opened the session on CAP by announcing that he would consider extending the 15 May deadline by when farmers had to submit their scheme applications given the administrative demands of the new regime. I supported Italy and other member states in calling for that extension and I stressed that it should be a minimum of a month. The Commissioner also confirmed that his services were examining all of the ideas submitted by member states in response to his simplification exercise. Ministers then proceeded to highlight a wide range of priorities for change, including the new greening requirements. I called for more realistic greening mapping and control regimes and argued that member states’ own interpretations and implementation should be respected. The presidency confirmed that they would seek to agree Council conclusions on CAP simplification at the May Council.

International agricultural trade issues

The Commission provided an update on EU agricultural imports and exports and the progress of a range of bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations during a Minister-only lunch session. I agreed with those member states who stressed that the EU’s high production standards and system of geographical indications should not be undermined. However, I underlined that global trade could boost economic growth across Europe and that significant opportunities were available to the EU, in particular in negotiations with the US and Japan.

AOB: Angora wool and fur from maltreated rabbits and furred animals

The Netherlands highlighted the issue, mainly in China, of plucking live angora rabbits for wool and furred animals being maltreated. I shared their concern and stated that UK officials would approach our textile and clothing industry to better understand their position. The Commission noted that the World Trade Organisation rules currently prevent the EU from imposing its animal welfare standards on third countries and agreed that a business to business approach would be best.

AOB: Xylella fastidiosa in southern Italy and risk of further spread in the EU

Commissioner Andriukaitis underlined the seriousness of the threat of the Xylella fastidiosa bacteria not only for olive trees but also potentially to the wider agriculture sector. Italy explained what measures had been taken and that the eradication of host plants was now under way. I supported the need for stronger EU emergency measures as well as updating the plant health directive, to provide better protection against all strains, from all countries and on all host plants.

[HCWS476]

Rural Payments Agency: Basic Payment Scheme

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s failure to deliver a digital-only system for processing the basic payment scheme via the Rural Payments Agency, and what assurances she can give to UK farmers that the failure will not result in significant delays to the receipt of their basic payment?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to update the House. This is the first year of the new basic payment scheme. As the new common agricultural policy is so complex, we needed to invest in a new computer system to administer claims; the existing single payment scheme computer system would not have been able to cope. The new system included a core, which was there to process data and which was based on an existing system used in other countries, and a portal that enabled farmers to register their details and to map land passes.

The core of the new rural payment system is working well. To date, more than 80% of farm businesses in England have registered successfully on it, so they can submit a BPS claim. We continue to engage and encourage farm businesses to register online as soon as possible. However, there have been performance issues with the online interface that enables farmers to input the data directly, especially when it comes to mapping land passes. We have been working to address those issues since February. Our priority has always been to ensure that farmers can submit their claims by the deadline. That is why we have made adjustments to our plans. The RPA is now offering farmers and their agents the option of using existing paper-based forms to finalise their claims. Information from those forms will then be input by the RPA on to the system.

There are two new ways in which farmers can complete their claims. Farm businesses with little change to their land will be fast-tracked by the RPA. In particular, those who predominantly have permanent pasture will not need to map those details. They will receive an e-mail in April that summarises the land and entitlement information already held on record, together with simple instructions on completing their claim by e-mail. The RPA has identified approximately 39,000 farmers who fall into that category.

Secondly, farm businesses that need to map new features can use blank existing forms to prepare their claims before they are sent a pre-populated form in early April. They can submit their claim by e-mail, by post, or through an RPA drop-in centre, and we have 50 of those now established. Separately, all agents will have received maps of their clients’ land from the RPA by the end of next week. Those dealing with the most complex cases will be offered additional support. The RPA is also exploring the option of giving some agents direct access to the system so that they can make applications quickly.

This is a pragmatic response that applies to the application process in 2015. It means that we will be able to make payments to farmers when the payment window opens in December 2015. All data entered so far on the rural payment scheme system have been saved and will be used by the RPA to complete farmers’ claims this year.

In addition, a number of other EU countries have had difficulties in getting their IT systems in place this year to process this first year of a new, more complicated CAP. In parallel, the Commission has offered an option to member states, allowing them to extend to 15 June the deadline for basic payment scheme applications. That was discussed on 16 March in a Council meeting, which I attended, and it was confirmed by the Commission on 19 March.

In conclusion, the core of the new system works and we are not abandoning anything. We will continue to use it and it will enable claims to be processed efficiently this year and will be the basis for service improvements in future years. However, the action that we announced last week will ensure that farmers can submit their applications successfully this year, and it has been welcomed by stakeholders and those in the industry.

Given the imminence of the general election, I am keen that we communicate with the Opposition on this issue and keep them in touch. I have written to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) explaining the current situation in detail, and, as she knows, I have offered to meet her, with Mark Grimshaw, to discuss the matter further. Our offices are in discussion about a date for that meeting, which I intend to happen this week. I am also more than happy to keep Opposition Front-Bench Members updated on the changes in the weeks ahead.

[Maria Eagle]

Many farmers will be depending on the basic payment scheme to keep their business afloat and on prompt payment to maintain vital cash flow. Given the seriousness of this matter, I am astounded that the Under-Secretary of State has been sent to this House to deal with it. Where is the Secretary of State? As well as refusing to answer questions on BBC’s “Farming Today”, she now appears to be running away from her duties to this House. Let us hope that the Select Committee has better luck getting her to appear tomorrow.

The disastrous late admission from Ministers that the mapping functionality of the Government’s digital by default system for making payments to farmers does not work is a serious blow to hard-working farmers, not least because the Secretary of State said on 11 March, in evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:

“The maps are up and running.”

We have all heard rumours for weeks, but the Government have blithely continued, heads in the sand, to insist that everything will work. As recently as 12 March, at the last DEFRA oral questions, the Under-Secretary of State was saying that his only plan was to make the system work; there was no contingency. As a consequence, many farmers who have endured incredible frustration trying to use the system to map the land, or have paid agents to do it for them, now face having to do it all again on paper, and at one of the busiest times of the farming year. How frustrating and wasteful of time and hard-earned money.

Will the Under-Secretary of State please tell the House why Ministers have repeatedly given assurances that the system works which have turned out not to be accurate? Will those farmers who have paid agents to make their claims online be compensated for now having to pay them again to submit the same information? It has previously been insisted that the scheme is too complex for paper. Now we have reverted to paper, so is there an increased risk of errors, which could result in penalties? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in future farmers will be able to access and use the information they have already submitted, or will they be forced to start again?

On Saturday, Mark Grimshaw, the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, referred to the fact that the EU payment window is open until the end of June. He said:

“I am absolutely confident that we will pay within the payment window.”

For farmers expecting their payments in December, that is far from reassuring. It is disastrous. Will the one-month delay in the deadline for applications cause a delay in payments? Mr Grimshaw has said:

“It will be foolhardy of me to commit to anything in December”.

What does the Minister expect farmers to do for cash flow while they wait for their cheques?

When did Ministers first hear that the digital by default system they chose to insist upon would not work? Why did they not implement contingency arrangements sooner, to save farmers the time and expense now wasted? How much money has been wasted? Finally, can the Under-Secretary of State assure the House that Ministers will now remove their heads from the sand, rise above the chaos and confusion their incompetence has caused, and come clean to the House: will the mapping functionality ever work, or will it need to be completely replaced?

[George Eustice]

I will begin by reminding the Opposition of their own record on the Rural Payments Agency. Let us not forget that in 2005, the system they introduced led to £600 million of disallowance for this country. Payments were regularly more than a year late—hardly any farmers ever received their payments on time. It took a Conservative-led Government coming to power in 2010 to sort it out.

The hon. Lady asks whether everything will have to be resubmitted on paper. As I made clear in my opening statement, for those farmers who have managed to enter their mapping details, the information has been recorded; they will not need to start again. She says that we have always maintained that the new CAP is too complex to be processed on paper alone and needs a computer. That remains the position. As I said in my opening statement, that is why we will still use the core of the system to process the data. We have, for example, coefficients on the areas farmers have of broad beans, leguminous vegetables, hedges and so on. It is complex, and that is why we are not removing a digital approach, but simply having RPA officers enter the information on behalf of the farmer. This is not a paper-only system; it is a paper-assisted system.

The hon. Lady said that Mr Grimshaw, the chief executive of the RPA, had said that he could not give guarantees about the payment window. Having worked with Mr Grimshaw for 18 months, I can say that he is cautious and he never gives guarantees. In all the time I have known him he has never said anything other than that we will make our payments within the payment window. In the past couple of years well over 95% of farmers have been paid on the first day of banking and paid early. I am confident, as I said, that once we have the information in and it has been processed, we will have a system in place that can deal with it.

The hon. Lady mentioned contingency plans. We have adapted our plans and acted to ensure that farmers can get their applications in time this year. That is the responsible thing to do. It would have been wrong to abandon the system and prematurely abandon attempts to sort out the portal, particularly the part that deals with land mapping. We have acted in time to ensure that farmers can get their applications in place, and the steps that we have taken have been welcomed by the farming industry.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who carried out fantastic work in turning around the mess that he inherited in the Department and sorting this out. Will my hon. Friend help me with one detail? The mapping that we are talking about is often very detailed—an electric fence here, a bit of undergrowth there. Would it be possible to pay farmers on account as partial payment this year, with the amounts being adjusted in subsequent years’ payments?

[George Eustice]

Provided an application is received by the deadline, there is provision in the EU regulations for it to be amended for a period of weeks after that. My hon. Friend’s suggestion of a payment on account while an application has not been received would not fit within the EU regulations, but we have made progress in getting that deadline extended to 15 June, and I have asked the RPA to take a sympathetic view towards farmers who are struggling to get their application in and who may want to amend those details after their form has been submitted.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

When the Paymaster General boasted to the public services 2030 conference just 20 days ago that under this Administration the words “Government” and “IT” no longer induce visions of failed IT projects, is it safe to assume that he did not know about this situation?

[George Eustice]

As I pointed out, we have not abandoned anything. The core of the system is working and will still be used. What we are doing is ensuring that the information provided, in many cases on paper, to the RPA will be entered by digitisers working for the RPA, but it will still go into an electronic system.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend regret the Department saying that there was no need for a contingency plan? Will he reassure the House that there cannot be a digital-only system where farmers do not have access to broadband? What are the Government doing to speed up the situation for farmers living in areas with less than 20% and sometimes less than 40% coverage by broadband to ensure that the core system will work next year, as we were assured by the RPA in the Select Committee that the system had been tried and tested across the European Union? Will he confirm that the extension has been agreed for payments to be entered by 15 June?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that our plans have always been adaptable. We have always had the ability to change plans and our priority is to ensure that every farmer can get their application in by the deadline. That is why we announced what we did last week. It is not necessary to announce one’s contingency plans until one is ready to use them. That does not mean that we had not thought about this and that we did not have the ability to keep those plans adaptable.

On my hon. Friend’s wider point about an internet-only or digital-only application, we have 50 digital support centres that will help farmers to do this, and we are setting up help centres in farmers markets and everywhere we can to ensure that they are able to get their application in on time. We have ensured as well that the system can work at relatively low broadband speeds, so I believe we have addressed the issues that she raised, but in the short term farmers can submit their application this year in paper-based form.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Why is it that every time this Government mess things up they send a junior Minister to the Dispatch Box—the Secretary of State is nowhere to be seen—to blame someone else? I happen to be an avid fan of the BBC’s “Farming Today”—almost as avid a fan as I am of Clare Balding’s “Ramblings”, as those who follow me on Twitter will know—and the fact is that had “Farming Today” not exposed the deep concern in the farming community about this mess, we would not have had this urgent question today.

[George Eustice]

That is simply not true. We made our decision when we realised that a software update the weekend before last had not worked as we had hoped. It had nothing to do with any media coverage; the media have told us nothing that we were not already aware of. The Secretary of State and I work as a team, so I am here today and she will be appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee tomorrow. We have been working closely together on this and both regularly meet the RPA to discuss these challenges.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I remind my hon. Friend that until the coalition Government sorted out earlier problems at the RPA, I was having to deal with hundreds of cases of farmers in my constituency who were affected and to make representations on their behalf. Has he noted the fact that we will soon be in a six-week election period during which none of us, whether or not we are standing for re-election, will have the status of a Member of Parliament, so he is likely to receive representations during that period from extremely worried farmers?

[George Eustice]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that although we will all cease to be Members of Parliament next Monday, I will remain the farming Minister and the Secretary of State will remain the Secretary of State until a new Government are formed, and I can reassure him that I will be having regular telephone conferences with the RPA and attending meetings to discuss and monitor the situation. We will keep a very close eye on this indeed.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I assume that departmental officials produced a risk assessment for Ministers when the move to this system was proposed, so can the Minister today advise the House on what he thinks are the projected costs to be incurred by DEFRA and the RPA, and indeed by farmers and landholders, as a result of this mess?

[George Eustice]

It is a matter of record that the project is intended to cost in the region of £154 million. All such projects are monitored by the Major Projects Authority within the Cabinet Office.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The important thing is that farmers can submit their claims on time and that the Government have rightly taken action to enable them to do so. In learning the lessons, will my hon. Friend recall that a decade ago only 15% of farmers were being paid on time by the Rural Payments Agency? Under this Government, that figure is now 98%, so he should take no lessons from the Labour party.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Labour party, when in government, allowed chaos to continue year after year. We have acted swiftly to ensure that farmers can get their applications in on time this year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Obviously there are difficulties with payments across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss these matters with his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Assembly, for example, and what discussions has he had with the farming unions, which might be able to indicate the best way to ensure that payments are made on time?

[George Eustice]

On the latter point, all farming unions and representatives and agricultural consultants have welcomed the steps we have taken, because they want to ensure that they can get their applications in on time. I discussed the matter with some colleagues from the devolved Administrations at the European Council last week, and I can confirm that they are all relieved that the Commission has extended the deadline.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend reassure farmers in the remote parts of my constituency by confirming that they will get the support they need, whether on paper or through access to online services, to avoid the disaster they faced under the system introduced by the previous Government?

[George Eustice]

As my hon. Friend says, we have acted swiftly to ensure that we can send maps and paper applications to ensure that all farmers can get their applications in on time. We have a network of 50 digital support centres to help farmers with the registration process, because we still want them to register with the online system.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Amid all the arguments, is it not simply vital to recognise that the important thing is that farmers get the money that is due to them when they need it? Echoing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), there is the consolatory thought that that will allow broadband roll-out to catch up.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As my right hon. Friend knows, this Government have spent over £700 million on rural broadband, and we are still looking at other options to reach the remaining 5% who still need it. He makes a good point. The focus for me this year is to ensure that farmers can get their applications in on time, which is why we have taken action. Unlike the Labour party, which let chaos continue for years, we acted swiftly to ensure that we could deal with the problem as soon as it was identified.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I welcome the extension of the deadline to 15 June. However, bearing in mind that too often deadlines are not met, can the Minister reassure me that our farmers will not be fined if they do not meet the deadline and that, whatever happens, the situation will be resolved before anyone talks about being fined, or of the country being fined, and will the European Union fine us if we do not meet certain deadlines?

[George Eustice]

As my hon. Friend might know, the deadline of 15 May is written in EU regulations and the Commission has agreed to extend it to 15 June. Under the regulations, farmers are given a period of 21 days during which a late application can be accepted. Until last week it was not clear whether the Commission would agree to an extension, although it had indicated that it might, so our plans were made on the basis that we would be aiming to meet the deadline of 15 May. Having that additional month gives us some more leeway, which is obviously welcome.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the over-complicated CAP system demonstrates that this can affect all member states in a very detrimental way? Is that something that we should be renegotiating as part of our new deal with the European Union?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are already in discussions with Commissioner Hogan about the interpretation of existing regulations for next year to ensure that we can get some simplification. In the mid-term review we will be pressing for further simplification of the greening rules. For the new CAP, which will take effect post 2020, we are already looking at radical reform to make it simpler and make more common sense.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Farmers understand better than anybody that things can go wrong, but what they cannot tolerate is damage to their business. Can the Minister give me a categorical assurance that if mistakes are made on these forms, the farmers will be corrected, not punished?

[George Eustice]

I have had that conversation with the RPA. One of my jobs as farming Minister is to sign off some of the appeals that reach the final process, and I can tell my hon. Friend that I am very challenging on those and have asked the RPA to adopt the most sympathetic approach possible. All information that farmers provide on paper will ultimately be entered by digitisers working for the RPA, and they will carry out checks to ensure that the forms they are entering reflect what farmers intended to put on them.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the Minister on taking decisive action and avoiding the disaster that the previous Government oversaw in 2006-07, when only 15% of farmers were paid on time. I congratulate him on listening to the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and other groups that have made representations and on making sure that we find a system that operates and allows farmers to be paid.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; the Labour party did not grip the problems with the RPA, so there was over £600 million of disallowance and farmers were often paid over a year late—as he said, only 15% were paid on time.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. At least farmers now have certainty and know that they can apply and that they will receive their payments, but can he give an utmost assurance that he will do everything he can to ensure that this delay in applications will not result in any delay in payments?

[George Eustice]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will be seeking to ensure that the claims are processed as quickly as possible and paid as speedily as we have demonstrated our ability to do in recent years.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

As the Minister knows, all that farmers in my constituency want is to get their application in on time and to get paid on time so that they can get on with running their business. Is he concerned about errors made this year and the ensuing penalties that we have heard about from other Members? Will farmers still be able to use the online system, or just agents, given that not all farmers have the use of agents?

[George Eustice]

We are giving some of the larger agents, representing just short of 20,000 farmers, access to the online system. We will not be able to give that access to all agents because of the training required and the time scale needed to enable them to use it. All farmers must still register online, and they will be able to download maps. Those who have simple claims will be able to sign a declaration to say that their land use has not changed and is still simple, such as permanent pasture. I take on board my hon. Friend’s point about errors. As I said, I have been pressing the RPA to take the most generous possible interpretation of the EU regulations. The regulations are clear that where an error is not the farmer’s fault, no penalty can be levelled against them.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Before he steps down from the House very shortly, I join colleagues in paying tribute to the work of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), not only for his work in clearing up the mess that we inherited with the RPA but his wider work on behalf of farmers.

My hon. Friend mentioned the 15 digital centres that are going to provide assistance. Will he update the House on what additional resource allocation will be put in place to help with the bureaucracy and the difficult conversations that farmers may have with helplines?

[George Eustice]

Yes. We have started to treat these digital centres as drop-in centres so that farmers can drop in on them without an appointment. During this crucial period, we are redeploying staff from DEFRA to the RPA to ensure that the helpline and the digital support centres are fully manned and have the capacity to cope with anything thrown at them.

Fishing Discards and Quotas

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this timely debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss some of these issues because DEFRA has a number of consultations out at the moment, looking at the discard ban and how we implement it for the demersal fleet, as well as at some of the issues that are of direct relevance to the under-10 metre fleet.

Let me begin by saying a little about the common fisheries reform that was agreed at the end of 2013. The UK worked hard to ensure that the reforms were a success. A great deal of credit is due to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), for doing so much to get what is quite a radical reform. It was said earlier that the European Union was a big problem in this regard. When it comes to the common fisheries policy, I think we have some potentially quite radical reforms, which I shall describe in a minute. I believe that those reforms can help to safeguard the marine environment while giving new flexibilities to our fishermen.

There are three key aspects to the reforms. First, there is a ban on the wasteful practice of discarding fish, or the so-called landing obligation. Secondly, there will be more regional fisheries management, with more power given back to the nation states that actually have an interest in those waters. In future, much more of the plans we have for individual waters will be agreed multilaterally by member states before being put to the European Union for final agreement. The third and final key component is a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably—that is, at maximum sustainable yield. Together, those three components make up a radical reform, but I am under no illusion that there will be challenges along the way. As always, the marine environment is very complex. It will not be easy to do some of those things, but by working together with industry, NGOs, scientists and other European member states, we can ensure that the reforms are a success.

Let me turn to the discard ban. It is important to note that we have been trialling an early forerunner of the discard ban for some time. I am proud to say that the UK has been leading the way in Europe in tackling the problem of discarding. For several years now we have trialled so-called catch quota schemes, which manage fisheries in line with what is caught rather than what is landed. Those schemes have shown that we can significantly reduce discards. In the North sea, vessels on our catch quota schemes reduced discards of cod, for instance, to just 0.1%, compared with 41% for vessels that were not part of the scheme. That shows just what we can do by working with industry.

The first stage of the discard ban, covering the pelagic fisheries—predominantly mackerel and herring—entered into force in January this year and has been working well. As with any radical change in policy, we have encountered some issues along the way, but I am pleased to say that we have successfully overcome each of these. The discard ban will progressively cover all remaining fisheries—the so-called demersal fleet—between 2016 and 2019. I am under no illusion that the next stage will be more complex, but that is a reason to get going and develop those plans now, and why on 23 January we launched a public consultation seeking views on various implementation issues. The consultation closes at the end of March.

My officials are currently travelling the length and breadth of the English coast from Newlyn to Whitehaven visiting fishing ports. They are answering any questions or concerns the industry has, but they are also tapping into the detailed local knowledge of our fishermen. It is essential that we do that. Fishermen often complain to me that they are not listened to. They sometimes feel that science is done to them rather than with them, but we know from experience that policy works well when scientists and fishermen work together to identify solutions.

My officials have not yet visited Folkestone and Hythe, but I have said to them that we should visit the area as part of the roadshow. If my hon. Friend thinks that will be useful for his fishermen, I am happy for my officials to go down there.

[Damian Collins]

If I were to write to the Minister tomorrow, would he give a date before Parliament is dissolved on 30 March when his officials can come down that we can offer to the fishermen?

[George Eustice]

I am more than happy to do that. My officials are in the officials’ box listening. I can assure my hon. Friend of that offer. They wanted to hold one of those meetings in Kent; Folkestone and Hythe would be a perfect place for it.

Exemptions and flexibilities will help to make the discard ban work. To ensure that it works in practice as well as in theory, during the deal we negotiated increased flexibility in how we manage quota. Those problems were considered during the reform. There are a number of key flexibilities. First and perhaps most importantly, there is inter-species flexibility. If fishermen put their nets out in a mixed fishery and catch more haddock than they expected but do not have the quota for it, they might be able to count that haddock against whiting or cod. That inter-species flexibility is essential to making sense of a quota regime.

Secondly, fishermen will be able to bank or borrow up to 10% of their quota from one year to the next, which gives them more flexibility in matching catches to quota. Thirdly, to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend, there is a survivability exemption. Fishermen will be able to return some catches to the sea if they have been scientifically proven to have a high rate of survival. Returning those fish to the sea allows them to grow and spawn, fortifying the stock for the future. As he pointed out, landing under-sized, juvenile plaice for which there is little market makes no sense if, by returning them and they survive, they can continue to grow.

Last year, we commissioned a large-scale research project to assess the survivability of plaice in different fisheries around the coast. The industry has identified plaice as a key species that has a high rate of survival. Once we have marshalled and considered that evidence, we will argue for exemptions on the basis of survivability for plaice and probably for a number of flat-fish species. It is important to recognise that we have access to other exemptions. That can include reasons such as disproportionate cost, or that it is not possible to further increase selectivity and reduce unwanted catches—that is the so-called de minimis exemption.

Finally, another point to bear in mind is that when implementing the discard ban, we will start with the species that define the fishery. It will not be a discard ban on every quota species from the beginning. We will start with those that define the fishery in 2016 and aim for it to cover all quota species by 2019. For instance, in the North sea, hake is sometimes referred to as a choke species. Fishermen find it difficult to avoid as a by-catch, but it would be possible to get to a discard ban on hake in later years, closer to 2019.

There are specific issues for the inshore fleet. I greatly value our inshore fishing communities and understand the specific problems they face. My hon. Friend used a figure that is often quoted to me—he said that they have access to only around 4% of quota. It is not quite as simple as that: the less mobile nature of the inshore fleet means that it is unable to access about 60% of the UK quota because it is in offshore waters—for instance, some of the mackerel fisheries well offshore are outside the range of the inshore under-10 metre fleet.

Within their inshore area of operation, however, by value the under-10 metre fleet land about a third of all quota stocks. At December Council I fought hard to secure roll-overs and quota increases for stocks around the UK, including some of those stocks that are important for the inshore fleet. Where there were cuts, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, we made an argument and brought fresh science to the table in order to reduce them. For instance, we managed to get a 10% increase in North sea skates and rays for Folkestone and Hythe and a roll-over for other areas in the UK, as opposed to a proposed 20% cut. I also agreed an extra 300 tonnes of whiting for the under-10 metre fleet in the north-east of England to allow it to land and sell its by-catch.

I recognise that many under-10 metre fleet fishermen will still feel that the current allocation means that they do not get a fair share, and they have a fair point. The reference period for when current allocations were decided was around the mid-’90s. By all accounts, some of the data for the under-10 metre fleet at that time were quite patchy and one result of that may be unfair allocation. That is why, since 2012, we have given the under-10 metre fleet access to additional quota to try to support it, and we continue to work with the industry on the quota realignment from unused quota on the larger vessels and producer organisations to the under-10 metre fleet. We are currently working to make that permanent and we are working through a number of appeals that some producer organisations have made to our approach. It is our intention to put that on a permanent footing.

The total increase in quota will vary from species to species, because it often depends on what is unutilised by the under 10-metre fleet. For instance, there could be significant increases in flatfish species that are particularly important to the under 10-metre fleet. Across the board, we estimate that the increase in quota could be about 12% for the under-10 metre fleet.

I also recognise that the under-10 metre fleet faces particular issues when implementing the discard ban, and we are looking at options to try to address them. As part of our consultation, we are seeking views on possible exemptions and changes to quota management for that part of the fleet, including options to make best use of any quota uplift. One option we have suggested in the consultation is to ring-fence 25% of the total national uplift in quota for the inshore fleet. That could give a significant increase in quota for the under-10 metre fleet.

I am also aware that the issue of latent capacity in the inshore fleet causes concern. We are currently consulting on options to make sure that inactive vessels are not able to re-enter the fisheries. That would provide certainty and security for those vessels operating in the under-10 meter pool. However, having discussed the issue at a number of fishing ports, I am aware that there are mixed feelings about that in the fishing industry. Obviously, I shall wait to see the full responses to the consultation.

I want to say a little about the new European maritime and fisheries fund, which will open shortly. The UK will receive some £200 million from the fund, which will help us to meet the challenges of implementing CFP reform. For instance, the lion’s share will go on selective net gear, helping fishermen to get the equipment they need to fish more selectively. It will also be used to help foster growth in the sector. Fishermen will be able to use the funding to help them adapt to the discard ban by purchasing more selective gear.

Across Europe, we have made real progress towards more sustainable fishing and stock recovery. In 2014, 27 stocks in the north-east Atlantic, North sea and Baltic were managed at maximum sustainable yield, up from just five species in 2009. At December Fisheries Council, I was pleased to secure a continued increase in the number of sustainable stocks this year and we expect to have 30 or more species that are fished sustainably. We are moving in the right direction with sustainable fisheries.

In my time as Fisheries Minister, I have visited many different ports across the UK and have always been impressed by the enthusiasm, determination and resourcefulness of the fishing industry. The marine environment, as I said at the beginning, is very complex.

[Jim Shannon]

As this is probably the last fishing debate we shall have in this Parliament, I thank the Minister for all the hard work he has done for all the fishing sectors across the whole of the UK, particularly in Northern Ireland. I know that he has a good relationship with the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle O’Neill. They have been an example of how to work together, in particular for the betterment of the fishing industry.

[George Eustice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words, although I, like all hon. Members, very much hope to be back after 7 May. I have enjoyed my time working with the industry.

I am confident that together we can build on our past successes and strengthen and grow our fishing industry for the future. It has been a pleasure to discuss this issue today.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of a discard ban on the inshore fishing fleet.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We recently launched a consultation on the implementation of the discard ban, which will help us to make that assessment. The consultation is being used to identify how to phase in the ban, how to allocate increases in quotas, where to introduce exemptions and how to manage the under-10 metre quota pool. The discard ban can provide significant benefits for all sectors of the fleet.

[Damian Collins]

Trawlermen in Folkestone, Hythe and Dungeness have raised with me their concerns about the lack of quota for the inshore fishing fleet and the potentially devastating impact of the discard ban. Will the Minister urgently consider making more quota available for the inshore fishing fleet and granting an exemption from the discard ban?

[George Eustice]

While the common fisheries policy does not allow the exemption of a whole fleet, there are other exemptions—for instance, exemptions for species that survive after being discarded, and if handling discards is disproportionately costly. On quota, we are in the process of permanently realigning some of it from producer organisations to the inshore fleet. In addition, as part of this consultation, we are considering giving the inshore fleet a greater share of the quota uplift that forms part of the CFP.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given the collapse of our bass stocks, and the fact that the latest figures show a worrying 30% increase in the number of commercial landings of bass, will the Minister please finally take meaningful action to save our bass? Will he, for instance, provide for an immediate increase in the minimum landing size, which is something that I signed off 10 years ago when I was the fisheries Minister?

[George Eustice]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been pursuing this issue. As he will know, at the December Council we argued strongly for measures to be taken on bass. We pressed the European Commission to take emergency measures to ban pair trawling, which was done in the new year. We are currently discussing with other member states and the Commission the possibility of a bag limit for anglers, and also catch limits for the remainder of the commercial fleet. I can also tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are considering raising the minimum landing size nationally.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

May I urge my hon. Friend to review the application of the rules relating to the ban on the return of fish that might survive, particularly hand-lined mackerel? I have some experience of this, and I know that the vast majority survive. It is absurd for fishermen to be told that they cannot return those fish.

[George Eustice]

Mackerel were included in the pelagic discard ban that was considered last year, but we are giving serious consideration to the survivability rates of white fish, particularly flatfish such as sole and plaice. I shall be happy to look into the specific issue of mackerel hand-lining in Cornwall, and to keep it under constant review. We did manage to secure an exemption for the Cornish sardine industry, which was a big success.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

There is still a huge amount of uncertainty about how the ban can be made workable in the context of mixed fisheries in the North sea. What are Ministers doing to ensure that so-called choke species do not end up choking off the livelihoods of not just the fishermen in the white fish fleet, but the onshore processors?

[George Eustice]

I know that people are concerned about the challenges involved in the implementation of a discard ban. That is why we have had to start thinking about it at an early stage, and why we have issued the consultation in the way that we have. As for choke species such as hake, which is often cited in Scotland, we will be phasing in the ban over five years, and we will start with the species that define the fishery, so the ban on some of those species would not apply until a date closer to 2020.

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

I believe that the discard ban is absolutely right, although it will obviously take some time to get its implementation right. What will be done about fish that are landed and may or may not be fit for human consumption, but could be used as fish food, or even for farming purposes?

[George Eustice]

We are discussing that with processors and port authorities, but we believe that we have enough processing capacity to create fishmeal, although there may be problems with transport from the ports to the locations where the fishmeal is processed. We want to change fishing behaviour, and to reduce the amount of unwanted fish that is landed by means of more selective gears and changes in fishing patterns.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the regional discrepancy in net configurations. The Northern Ireland requirement is 300 mm, while the requirement in the Republic of Ireland is 80 mm, and there are different requirements in Scotland, Wales and England. Has the Minister discussed with regional authorities and the Government of the Republic the introduction of more uniformity in net configuration, in the context of the discard ban?

[George Eustice]

I shall be happy to look into that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nephrops industry is particularly important in Northern Ireland, and we managed, against the odds, to secure an increase in the total allowable catch at the December Council. That will be good for the Northern Ireland fleet. Different countries take different approaches when it comes to technical measures; that is an important aspect of the devolved entity that we want the common fisheries policy to become.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the role the public can play in supporting bees and pollinators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

4. What assessment she has made of trends in the performance of the Rural Payments Agency since 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Under this Government, the Rural Payments Agency has dealt with the historical issues of late payments to farmers, which were a feature under the last Government. This year it released payments to 97.4% of claimants within the first month, and 2013-14 was the agency’s most successful year to date, with more customers being paid on the first day than ever before, and with high customer satisfaction scores.

[Bill Wiggin]

I must declare my interest in farming. Will the basic payments system be ready by 15 May? Why are farmers expected to draw ineligible features, instead of satellite mapping being used? What sort of support is there if they make any errors in the process, so that they are not being set up to fail?

[Mr Speaker]

There were three questions there, but at least each was brief.

[George Eustice]

On the first point, I can report that over 75% of farmers are now registered on the system. Some of them are experiencing issues with the slowness of the mapping system, and we are working to address that. On my hon. Friend’s question about why they have to map, they have always had to map ineligible features—that is a requirement of the EU regulations—but they are entered on to the final application by digitisers, who check that the area is mapped correctly.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Stephen Wyrill, national chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association, says that the Department’s online system for farmers to claim under the basic payment scheme is “heading for carnage”, and Guy Smith, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, says that its concern will turn to “justified alarm” if full mapping functionality is not operating by this weekend as promised. Many farmers depend for their survival on this payment. Can the Minister give an undertaking that all farmers will be able to make their claim online by 15 May?

[George Eustice]

We have been working closely with the farming industry on this. Under this system, this was always going to be an iterative process. We wanted to put the system in place in stages and instalments. We have 75% of farmers on already, we are addressing the issue of the speed of the system, and we are looking at ways of expediting things for certain land types, so that they can bypass parts of the land eligibility criteria. I should also point out that we have a network of 50 digital support centres to help those farmers who require help.

[Maria Eagle]

With 25% of farmers not yet registered and the deadline fast approaching, Farmers Weekly is reporting that only 236 farmers have gone for help to the 50 support centres, which is fewer than five per centre. Those who have registered—96% of them did so by phone, not online—are reporting that the online system has constant error messages and general slowness, that field information is not appearing, and that the mapping function does not work. Is the Minister planning a paper-based plan B, in case his online system collapses or is not fit for purpose?

[George Eustice]

Our plan is to make the system work and to ensure that those farmers who need help can go into digital support centres. We anticipate that those centres will be busier in April, but we have ensured that they have sufficient capacity to upscale and to help farmers. It is important to recognise that about half of all farmers have only permanent pasture, and the requirement for them to map their details is lesser than it is for arable farmers. We are looking at ways of expediting this process.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

This Government should be hugely proud of the massive improvement in the Rural Payments Agency, compared with the chaos of a few years ago. We should also give thanks to its chief executive, Mark Grimshaw, for his work on making that happen. It is a fact that the IT systems will be critical in future. They will have to work, but we also need to enable farmers to use IT out in rural areas of the country that often have no access. The Minister will of course do everything he can to make the system work, but will he also redouble his efforts to persuade other Government Departments that rural broadband is absolutely critical to this important industry?

[George Eustice]

Yes. We recognise the importance of rural broadband, which is why Broadband Delivery UK has invested hundreds of millions of pounds to bring broadband to rural areas. I know that my hon. Friend was involved in commissioning the Cap D system—the common agricultural policy delivery system—and he will recognise that we have ensured that it can operate at quite low speeds of around 2 megabits per second. That will ensure that most farmers are able to use it, but we have established the network of digital support centres for those who are not.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department’s environmental key performance indicators are met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

9. What assessment she has made of the lessons that can be learned from the experiences of other countries in dealing with bovine tuberculosis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The success of the bovine TB eradication policies pursued in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the Republic of Ireland demonstrates the need to bear down on the disease effectively in both cattle and wildlife.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that lessons from Ireland, in particular, show that where there is TB in wildlife it must be tackled through culling as part of any comprehensive strategy to tackle TB? If that had happened years ago when TB was known to be moving towards Cheshire at the rate of 1 mile a year, Cheshire’s farmers would not be suffering the difficulties they are today. Does he also agree that this should not be such a political issue? It is about supporting our farmers and eradicating TB.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: it is not possible to eradicate this disease without tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. She rightly says that the previous Government put their head in the sand and did nothing. This is a slow-moving, difficult disease and it has to be hit hard and early, which the previous Government failed to do. At a recent NFU conference Labour confirmed again that, irrespective of the evidence and the advice of the chief veterinary officer, it would abandon the culls.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Despite the Government’s protestations, the previous Labour Government killed more badgers than any other Government. [Laughter.] Yes. The £50 million trial over 10 years concluded that such action gave no meaningful contribution to the eradication of tuberculosis. The Government’s badger culls have not just been a disaster for wildlife, but come at a huge financial cost. In the first year of the culls, the Government spent £9.8 million. With Ministers proposing to extend the badger culls, possibly to 10 areas and after that to 40 areas, how much more can taxpayers expect to fork out for these ineffective and inhumane badger culls?

[George Eustice]

The random badger cull trials that were carried out demonstrated incontrovertibly that, over time, the cull did lead to a significant reduction in the disease, which is why the experts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recommend a cull as part of the strategy. It is absolutely wrong for Labour to say that it will ignore the evidence and the advice of the chief veterinary officer. On the costs in the first year, the cull clearly had elements of analysis, post mortem, research and policing that will not be present when we roll it out more widely. We are committed to having a badger cull as part of our 25-year strategy.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

10. If she will take steps to increase the number of Natura 2000 sites in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T5. I hope that the Minister’s office passed on notice of my question; I appreciate that it is quite obscure. Musicians face anxiety when they travel to the United States because if their instruments contain even small amounts of ivory they fall foul of the convention on international trade in endangered species regulations. Will the Minister assure me that CITES certificates will be recognised by the US authorities and, in the longer term, may we perhaps look at an exemption for vintage instruments? I think that mother of pearl as well as ivory is an issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We are aware of these concerns and certainly want the US Government to recognise CITES musical instrument certificates, to ease the task of musicians travelling to the US with instruments that contain small amounts of legal ivory. Ultimately, these are matters for the US Government to determine. However, we intend to approach the European Commission and other EU member states to propose a joint approach to ask the US to clarify its position, with the aim of providing the reassurances the hon. Lady seeks.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T4. So much done, so much still to do. Will my right hon. Friend commit to giving statutory status as consultees to water companies for fracking, major developments and houses and roads? In the time available, what will she look back on and see as her Department’s major achievement over the past five years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of the current price war in the supermarkets with regard to the price of a loaf of bread. Sainsbury’s is selling Hovis at 75p a loaf. What can Ministers do to ensure that that does not adversely impact people working in the baking industry?

[George Eustice]

The supermarket adjudicator requires retailers to stick to the terms of contracts, not retrospectively to hit suppliers or unreasonably request them to take part in promotions. Through the groceries code and the adjudicator, we have measures in place to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman cites.

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

T7. Shoreham in my constituency has a flourishing houseboat community, which adds to the colour of our town. Alas, it also adds to the colour of the water flowing into Shoreham harbour until high tide washes it away, as few boats have sewage tanks or are linked to drainage on the shore. Do the Government have any plans to tighten up on pollution from boats used as homes?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s help for dairy farming through exports, public procurement and general support, but what talks has she had with the banks? I think milk prices will improve, but the banks need to support farmers in the meantime.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There will be short-term cash-flow pressures on farmers who are currently receiving low prices and in some cases have quite high costs. I have had a meeting already with the banks to discuss this and to encourage them to show forbearance. As the Secretary of State said earlier, we have also been encouraging HMRC to show forbearance to those farmers facing difficulties, and I will continue to monitor the issue closely.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

May I urge the Government to reconsider their policy? Although they offer support for bovine TB badger vaccination projects in edge areas, they do not provide that same support in so-called hot-spot areas. I have been working with the Zoological Society of London on a project which has just been very successfully rolled out for its first pilot this year in Penwith. I urge the Government to look at that seriously, because projects in hot spots could make a telling and important contribution to bearing down on bovine TB.

[George Eustice]

I have met the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue. He is aware that we have made an offer at DEFRA to give some support to that project in his constituency, notably to provide it with free vaccines and some equipment. However, the edge area vaccination scheme is in the edge area for a very good reason: the vaccine does not cure badgers that already have the disease. There is logic to using the vaccine in the edge area, to create a buffer to prevent the spread of the disease, but less so in the high-risk areas.

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

Marine Management Organisation (Triennial Review)

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Today I am publishing the report of the triennial review of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), which was launched by DEFRA’s then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on 10 September 2013. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

The MMO exists to make a significant contribution to sustainable development in the marine areas and to promote the UK Government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The purpose behind its creation was to bring marine management activities from across Government into one place, to provide a more integrated approach to fisheries management, marine planning, licensing and conservation.

The review has concluded that the functions of the MMO are necessary for the UK Government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The function should continue to be delivered by a non-departmental public body; and the MMO remains the right body to deliver them.

The review also considered the MMO’s governance and control arrangements. It found many positive features and concluded that it has shown improvements in service delivery since 2010. However, the review has made some recommendations.

The full report of the review of the MMO can be found on the website at: http://www.gov.uk and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS366]

International Endangered Species

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this most appropriate debate as today is, as he pointed out, world wildlife day. Individuals and organisations will be marking the day with events around the world, and I note that the right hon. Gentleman has been particularly busy highlighting the problems our wildlife face with the release of his “Animal Countdown” CD. Before this debate I went online to listen to it and it is not bad—it is pretty good and certainly does highlight this very important issue. On world wildlife day, we celebrate the intrinsic value of animals and plants, but we also highlight the severe threats that they face. Those threats range from habitat destruction and climate change to the illegal wildlife trade and poaching, which is threatening to decimate many species, as he pointed out.

Much of our ongoing effort to combat those threats is undertaken through work in the relevant international conventions, including the convention on biological diversity and the convention on international trade in endangered species. The UK Government provide direct support to countries that are rich in biodiversity but poor in financial resource. This includes work in our overseas territories through the globally respected Darwin initiative. More than 900 projects totalling around £110 million have been funded since 1992, supporting habitat and species from elephants to the mountain chicken, which is not actually a chicken but a type of frog native to the Caribbean islands of Dominica and Montserrat. The global tiger initiative has brought together all the tiger range states, as well as concerned Governments —including that of the UK—and academics and non-governmental organisations involved in the global tiger recovery programme. The programme aims to double the number of tigers in the wild by 2022, and the UK has committed funding equivalent to $500,000 to support that work.

This year’s theme for world wildlife day is wildlife crime. In recent years, it is the scourge of poaching that has focused many minds as it threatens some of the world’s most iconic species, including elephants, rhinos and tigers. There was wide recognition that more needed to be done and I am pleased to say that this Government are a global leader in efforts by the international community to tackle this issue, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged. The illegal wildlife trade not only threatens the future existence of whole species; it devastates already vulnerable communities co-existing with these species, drives corruption and undermines our efforts to cut poverty. The right hon. Gentleman gave an example of gunmen killing all the animals and all the rangers. Murder is being committed, and we should recognise the fact that many of the rangers who are trying to fight the scourge of poaching are putting their lives at risk. This illegal trade strikes at the very heart of our goals for good governance, for the protection of national and regional security, and for sustainable economic development.

The number of animals being poached is truly horrific. At least 20,000 elephant poaching deaths were recorded in 2013. In 2014, the Government of South Africa reported that 1,215 rhinoceroses were killed by poachers. That is a staggering increase, up from 13 killed in 2007. This wholesale slaughter is being driven by greed and by organised criminal syndicates. The price of ivory in China trebled between 2010 and 2014.

Recognising the rapidly deteriorating situation, in February last year the Government hosted the London conference on the illegal wildlife trade. High-level representatives from 41 countries and 10 international organisations came together to agree a set of urgent actions. The conference delivered an ambitious political declaration containing 25 commitments to take action on, for example, reducing demand for illegal wildlife products, ensuring effective legal frameworks and deterrents across the globe, strengthening law enforcement and supporting sustainable livelihoods. Those 25 commitments included Governments committing for the first time to renounce the use of any products from species threatened with extinction, and Governments supporting the CITES commercial prohibition on international trade in elephant ivory until the survival of elephants in the wild is no longer threatened by poaching. Governments also committed to treating poaching and trafficking as a serious organised crime in the same category as drugs, arms and people trafficking.

In December last year, we announced funding for 14 projects as part of the illegal wildlife trade challenge fund, worth almost £4 million. That will help developing countries to tackle the illegal wildlife trade, and it is in addition to the five projects that we funded earlier in 2014. This means that we are now supporting 19 projects with a value of more than £5 million over the next four years.

There is also some evidence that other countries are starting to follow our lead. Over the past year, there have been many positive examples of countries taking action to deliver the commitments made in the London declaration. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, just last week China announced a 12-month immediate ban on the importation of carved ivory, in support of its efforts to protect elephants in Africa. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge is currently in China as part of his visit to the far east. He is undertaking engagements there in support of his work to combat the illegal wildlife trade and support wildlife conservation. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs raised the issue of illegal wildlife trade during her recent visit to China at the beginning of this year. In Vietnam, the penal code is being amended to incorporate stronger and more deterrent sanctions against environmental crimes, including the illegal trade in endangered species.

UK enforcement bodies play an active role in combating wildlife trafficking, and I commend the excellent work of the national wildlife crime unit and the UK Border Force. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the future funding of that unit. Like him, I have been passionate about supporting it, and DEFRA certainly made funding available to it up until 2016. Having been in government, he will be familiar with the way in which funding works, and we will have to wait until the next spending review period before we can make specific commitments on it. I hope he will accept that in recognising the unit’s good work, I am sending a strong signal in support of its efforts to tackle this difficult problem. Hon. Members may recall a case last year of an interception at Heathrow of very rare San Salvador rock iguanas being smuggled from the Bahamas. We were able to return 12 of these critically endangered species to their natural habitat. Sadly, one of the iguanas died, but I am pleased to say that the criminals responsible received 12-month custodial sentences. The success of that operation was due to the excellent work carried out by the Border Force CITES enforcement team based at Heathrow.

As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is more to be done on intercepting smuggling during transportation. I therefore welcome the creation of an international taskforce to examine the role of the transportation industry in the trafficking of illegal wildlife products. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge launched that in December 2014, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Leader of the House—the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned him—has agreed to chair that important taskforce. The taskforce, including representatives from the global transport industry, will develop industry-wide protocols for the sector to strengthen measures it can take to help to eliminate this trafficking. Through the illegal wildlife trade challenge fund, the Government are supporting work such as the border point project, stopping illegal wildlife trade in the horn of Africa. We are also providing funding to the Born Free Foundation to improve enforcement by sending experts to border points to increase the knowledge and skills of local officials.

The right hon. Gentleman finished his speech slightly sooner than I thought he would, so my officials have been working overtime to ensure that I have answers to some of his questions. He asked about the serious and organised crime strategy, and I can confirm that it does cover the illegal wildlife trade. I have covered the point about the national wildlife crime unit; we support the work it does, but, obviously, we are bound by the fact that we have to await the next spending review before making any final commitments on that front. He also asked for an update on any progress being made on updating the CITES regulations. The Government are continuing to take forward the review of CITES regulations, and consultation on proposed changes is taking place. We recognise that the remaining time is limited within this Parliament, but it remains this Government’s intention to progress as far as we can the laying of that updated legislation before the House.

[Norman Baker]

Just before the Minister concludes, will he say something about the issue of online trading and what steps the Government can take to alert buyers to the potential illegality of their purchases?

[George Eustice]

I have answered parliamentary questions on that matter, and my understanding is that that is something the National Crime Agency was doing. There used to be a designated person dealing with that matter. The fact that that post no longer exists does not mean that the work is not being done. It simply means that there is not a single designated person doing it. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about this matter. As he will know, this specific issue is within the portfolio of my noble Friend Lord de Mauley, and I will ask him to clarify the position on online crimes.

The Government are strongly committed to protecting our world’s endangered species, and in particular to supporting the international community to tackle poaching and the trafficking of wildlife. As the follow-up to the London conference, the Government of Botswana are hosting a second conference in Kasane. That conference is an opportunity to recognise the progress that has been made globally on combating the illegal wildlife trade, and importantly to maintain the priority and focus directed towards this issue achieved at the London conference.

The UK has worked closely to support the Government of Botswana in developing a range of ambitious outcomes. We expect Governments to commit to actions that build on the London declaration. That is likely to include strengthening work to reduce the demand and supply sides for illegal wildlife products, and action to tackle money laundering and other kinds of financial crime associated with the illegal wildlife trade. Those are the sorts of action that we need to take. As an international community, we need to do everything possible to ensure that these magnificent and yet sadly—in some cases—endangered species have all the protection that humanity can offer.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Offord]

My right hon. Friend may say that, but he has not come forward with any evidence to convince me. Some people may argue that slaughter is humane if it is—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Offord]

Well, I must give way to the Minister.

[George Eustice]

I have discussed this issue with Shechita UK, and everyone acknowledges that the hind quarters are normally sold on the open market. It would be conceded that most of it goes to Smithfield, possibly to be sold to caterers, but Shechita UK will also maintain that some of it goes to halal markets.

[Dr Offord]

I apologise to the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), because I have been corrected. I can only say that some of it may indeed go into the food chain, but not in the way that was anticipated—that is, the whole carcase of an animal. I think we are dancing on the head of a pin if we are saying that only some might go into the food chain.

What is humane slaughter? Some people say that slaughter is humane if an animal is protected from unavoidable excitement, pain or suffering, and that that requires the animal to be restrained and stunned, rendering it insensitive to pain before it is allowed to bleed to death. I do not accept that. I too have been to an abattoir, and I have also been around cattle when they have been killed in other places. When cattle enter any kind of contraption, including the back of a lorry, their stress levels increase.

In preparation for this debate, I read Jon Henley’s January 2009 article in The Guardian about the European pig industry. Some animals experience a lifetime of distress and suffering. The article documented pigs being kept on slatted concrete floors; pregnant sows being kept in cages so small that they could not move; piglets being castrated without pain relief; and tails routinely being docked to prevent animals from attacking each other. The food that enters the UK food chain from the EU is never discussed, which is peculiar. Muslim and Jewish people do not eat pork, but no one ever discusses such issues—we seem to be focusing on the same issues time and again. We should certainly spend time on other issues, such as the trimming of hens’ beaks; the mechanical mis-stunning of animals; the fly-grazing of horses; puppy farming; the culling of chicks on the basis of sex; and the cultivation of endangered turtle meat in places such as the Cayman Islands. None of that is ever covered.

It is worth highlighting that the petition has come about with great haste, in contrast with the British Veterinary Association petition, which has taken almost a year to come to fruition. I would like the new BVA chairman to stop fanning the hysteria around this issue and look at what veterinarians are doing to ensure animal welfare in slaughter houses.

I will not talk about shechita in particular, because it has already been covered, but I want to make a point about why some of the methods we have discussed have come about. The whole motivation in the large-scale factory abattoirs is to speed up the process and prevent the animal from thrashing around at the point of slaughter. That is why stunning occurs. Animal welfare organisations claim to have adopted the idea of stunning in an effort to raise levels of animal welfare, but the evidence in support of the animal welfare benefits is inconclusive. Mechanical methods frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in great, prolonged distress.

The last time we debated this issue, I mentioned the Food Standards Agency statistics on mis-stuns, which showed—and the Minister agreed—that an unrealistically low number of mis-stuns had been reported in the UK. In 2011, only six cattle were officially reported as having been mis-stunned. Following my questions, the Minister conceded that the statistics are not complete and may represent only a fraction of the actual number, and that the FSA will have to endeavour to improve its reporting methods.

I oppose stunning on the basis that mis-stuns cause animals more pain and distress and that it does not improve animal welfare. I am uneasy about the idea of ending non-stun slaughter coming forward so soon after the previous debate. I defend people’s right to eat meat and I defend my right not to eat meat; I also defend my constituents’ right to eat meat slaughtered in the way that they want it to be. Some people have said that these methods of slaughter are alien practices that are not part of British culture and not something we do in Britain. That starts to produce a divide between some groups and the so-called British public, and I am greatly concerned about that.

On the back of the Copenhagen and Paris attacks, many of my Jewish constituents worry that they are not wanted in this country. They, however, are more British than some of the people who have signed the e-petition; they, at the end of their synagogue services, always play “God Save the Queen” and sing along. We do not see that in other parts of society, more’s the pity. Similarly, when I visit my Muslim constituents at the mosque, they do not talk about the issues that some of the far right claim that they do; they are more concerned about parking outside the mosque on a Friday, so that they can get not only to the mosque but back to work afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate all the members of the public who signed the petition and congratulate them on getting it past the 100,000 threshold to secure this debate. Members from all parties have expressed frustration at the fact that we debated this issue as recently as November, but let me be clear: I have always been of the view that debate never does harm to a democracy such as ours. This issue has been debated in Parliament since 1875 and if reports are to be believed that another petition has also exceeded 100,000 signatories, no doubt we will discuss it again, perhaps even before the general election. The reason for that is the importance of this issue to the public.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that the new procedure that enables members of the public to force debate on issues that are important to them is a good one. It is healthy for our democracy, so we should embrace and support it. I remember that he chaired the previous debate, which took place here back in November, when I dealt with many of these issues. He may recall that I set out some of the historical context. Given that some hon. Members here were not at that debate, it might be useful to summarise briefly some of that context again.

European and domestic regulations, which apply to the welfare of all animals slaughtered, require that all animals are stunned before slaughter. However, there is a long-standing derogation to allow slaughter without stunning in accordance with religious rites for the production of halal or kosher meat.

Our current national requirements on religious slaughter have a long history. The Government first set down powers to prevent cruelty in slaughterhouses through the Public Health Act 1875, and byelaws made under that legislation required animals to be “effectually stunned”. In 1904, the Admiralty set up a committee to ascertain the most humane and practical methods of slaughtering animals. Its report recommended, without exception, that all animals should be stunned before slaughter.

Following that report, the Local Government Board issued a circular proposing that the recommendations of the Admiralty’s committee should be implemented, but stunning should not be obligatory where slaughter was carried out by a Jew, licensed by the Chief Rabbi, provided that no unnecessary suffering was inflicted. It is interesting that a similar requirement for shechita slaughter—that it is carried out by a Jewish slaughterman, licensed by the Rabbinical Commission—still exists in our national legislation.

The first national legislative requirement for stunning was brought in under the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, as I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) alluded to. That also contained an exception from stunning for slaughter for Jews and Muslims. Over the years the national rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide protection to animals that are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. That brings me to the current situation.

Our existing national rules on religious slaughter, which are set out in schedule 12 to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter and Killing) Regulations 1995, provide greater protection than those contained in the European regulation. For example, there are requirements on how cattle can be restrained: we require bovines to be restrained only in pens that meet the requirements set down in the regulations. Such pens must be of suitable size and design, and include a suitable head restraint and a means of support that will take the animal’s weight during and following slaughter—a belly support. All pens must go through a rigorous procedure before approval is given.

Furthermore, unlike member states such as France and the Netherlands, we do not allow inversion of cattle for religious slaughter. That ban followed the 1985 report of the then Farm Animal Welfare Council, which recommended that inversion should be banned. The reason it gave was

“the terror and discomfort which ensue from the inversion of cattle in the rotary pen”.

The FAWC went on to recommend

“that the law be amended to permit the use of a pen which restrains the animal in a standing position provided that the design of the pen, which must be approved by Ministers, incorporates effective restraint and support for the animal”.

Other recommendations from that important 1985 FAWC report have been part of our national rules for some 25 years. They include, for instance, that no animal should be placed in a restraining pen until the slaughterman is in position and ready to carry out the incision. The regulations also require that a captive bolt gun must be kept close to the restraining pen in case of any emergency—for example, if the animal does not become unconscious due to the occlusion of the arteries in its neck.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Bowood episode clearly shows that the regulations might not be being followed to the letter, so who is responsible for ensuring that they are?

[George Eustice]

The food business operator—the operator of the abattoir—is legally required to ensure that those are followed, but I point out that an official veterinarian is present at every abattoir and it is their job to enforce them. I shall return to the issue of enforcement later.

In addition, the regulations require that before each animal is slaughtered, the knife must be checked to ensure it is sharp and undamaged, and that the cut must be a rapid and uninterrupted movement that cuts both carotid arteries and veins.

Other national rules concern the so-called standstill times for cattle, sheep and goats: following the neck cut, the animal cannot be moved, in the case of bovines, until it is unconscious and at least 30 seconds have passed, or, in the case of sheep and goats, until at least 20 seconds have passed. The standstill times aim to provide protection from avoidable pain, suffering and distress caused, for example, by unnecessary movement while the animal is still conscious.

Although there are no standstill rules as such for poultry, there are still a number of national rules that aim to minimise pain, suffering and distress. Following the neck cut, no further dressing procedure can be carried out on the bird until it is unconscious and at least two minutes have elapsed, in the case of turkeys and geese; for all other birds it is 90 seconds.

I set those regulations out in detail because it is important to recognise that there are special, strict requirements where religious slaughter is carried out. However, hon. Members should recognise another important point: none of the exemptions we have for religious slaughter exempt any operator from their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is the role of the official veterinarians in the abattoirs to decide when it may be necessary to go in, as required under the regulations, and use a bolt gun where something goes wrong. I shall return to that point later.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering pointed out, there are also differing requirements right across Europe, as provided for in the European regulations. In Germany, for example, abattoirs have to prove the religious needs and the number of animals to be slaughtered to satisfy the needs of the religious community concerned before being granted a licence. My hon. Friend asked whether we could look at that further, as did the shadow Minister. It is an interesting area and following this debate, given the apparent support from hon. Members, I would be willing to look at it. However, the existing standstill times are already a powerful disincentive for the mainstreaming of religious slaughter, because they make the process much slower. It is therefore not really in the interests of any abattoir to conduct religious slaughter in accordance with the regulations unless it is for a specific need.

[Mr David Jones]

Why are such a high proportion of sheep and goats being killed by the non-stun method? The figure is 15%, as we have heard, whereas the Jewish and Muslim population of this country accounts for only some 5% of the total population.

[George Eustice]

I am not sure. I will have to check those particular figures. We know, for instance, that around 73% of all halal meat slaughtered is already stunned before it is slaughtered, and as many hon. Members pointed out, the amount of kosher meat on the market is a very small proportion. However, this is an interesting area, and it is something that I have looked at. I do not think that it gets away from the broader dilemma of the debate, but nevertheless, it is worthy of further consideration.

In the Netherlands, all animals must be stunned if they have not lost consciousness within 40 seconds of the cut. In France, there must be a post-cut stun if cattle are still conscious after 90 seconds. Other countries—notably Finland, Austria, Estonia and Slovakia—go further in requiring immediate post-cut stunning, whereas Denmark requires post-cut stunning in bovines only.

Further afield, as several hon. Members have pointed out, under Australian law, stunning at slaughter is required, but there is an option for a state or meat inspection authority to provide an exemption and approve an abattoir for ritual slaughter without prior stunning for the domestic market, but post-cut stunning is still a requirement for those animals.

As we have plenty of time, I want to move on to other points that hon. Members have raised. Having discussed this issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was one of my predecessors in this role, I know that this is something he has looked at. I can tell him that I have looked at it in equal detail since and that finding a consensus among the various parties concerned is no easier than it ever was. However, I want to pick up on a few issues that he highlighted.

My right hon. Friend described a situation in an abattoir in which several sheep were in a V restrainer conveyor simultaneously. That would be a breach of the existing regulations. There should never be more than one sheep in a sheep restrainer for the purposes of religious slaughter, because, as I have pointed out, the requirement is very clear that they cannot go into the slaughter pen—in this case, the V restrainer—until they are ready to be slaughtered. That is very important, because sheep have a natural tendency to want to flock, and putting them in a restrainer where they are held firm, while there are the standstill times and other sheep taking 15 or 20 seconds ahead of them, is not right. That is a breach of the existing regulations.

My right hon. Friend raised valid points on the time to unconsciousness. I remember well him describing to me seeing cattle take up to six minutes to lose consciousness. I hear various ranges for the time to loss of consciousness. There is a consensus that chickens are normally unconscious within 15 to 20 seconds. Likewise, I am told that 10 to 15 seconds is typical in the case of sheep, as he pointed out, and sometimes it is a little longer. However, when it comes to cattle, it is clear that there can be quite wide variances. He says that he witnessed cattle taking between four and six minutes to lose consciousness. I have discussed the matter with our veterinary advisers, some of whom have worked as OVs in abattoirs, and they tell me that it is more typical that, after around 40 seconds, the animal will collapse and go off its legs, and be supported by the restraining pen, and that it will typically then lose consciousness after 1 minute 20 seconds. That is still quite a lot of time, but it is why France has a cut-off point of 1 minute 30 seconds, after which a post-cut stun is required. At the other extreme, I have met former staff of the FSA who have told me that they have seen shechita abattoirs do this particularly effectively, with the animal collapsing within 10 seconds.

It is also clear that in many of these abattoirs, both halal and shechita—the best ones—where anything goes wrong, they are in quickly with the bolt gun to put the animal out of any pain. That is why I want again to talk about the Animal Welfare Act 2006, under which there is a requirement on an abattoir operator not to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal. Where something goes wrong—where, for example, it takes up to five or six minutes for the animal to lose consciousness—there is a clear rationale for an official veterinarian to intervene earlier to say that something had gone wrong and that, as required under the regulations, the animal should be dispatched with a bolt gun.

Further to the fact that I have never been able to get a clear answer on exactly how long it takes for bovines in particular to lose consciousness, some months ago I asked our deputy chief veterinary officer to conduct a piece of work with the FSA to look at the matter afresh and see whether we can, without changing any laws, ensure that we have consistent application of the existing laws and consistent understanding of when it is appropriate for an OV to require that post-cut shot to be taken.

Let me move on to other points. Various hon. Members questioned the science of whether it is better for the welfare of the animals for them to be stunned prior to slaughter. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made the good point, which I will concede, that at the time when halal and kosher were designed, they were very much about respect for the animal and sparing it any unnecessary pain. The genesis of both halal and kosher was about animal welfare, albeit that was some time ago.

I also completely accept that there can be good and bad abattoirs. It may be that conventional abattoirs would also mistreat the animals. I completely recognise the point that there are big differences. The only thing that I would say—this is where there is strong cross-party consensus—is that we have to look at the scientific evidence that we have, and the argument that says that the cut itself is equivalent to a stun is not borne out by the scientific evidence. As the shadow Minister pointed out, we had in 2003 the Farm Animal Welfare Committee report, which concluded that non-stun slaughter could cause distress and suffering. In 2004, we had the European Food Safety Authority report, which also concluded that it was preferable to have stunning of all animals. In 2009, the EU DIALREL report reached the same conclusion. It looked at neurological surveys of animals that were being slaughtered in order to establish scientifically whether they were experiencing pain. More recently, work in New Zealand has confirmed the same. It is therefore important that we recognise the basis on which the exemption exists. It is not because we think that somehow religious slaughter, be it halal or shechita, is a more humane way to slaughter animals than what mainstream abattoirs do today. It is because we respect the religious rights of those communities and we have accommodated them in the long-standing derogations that we have in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) raised the issue of CCTV, on which we have recently had a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. It stops short of saying that there should be compulsory use of CCTV in slaughterhouses. We should recognise that the place in her constituency about which concerns were raised did have CCTV, so it is no panacea on its own. However, the FAWC report does conclude that many advantages come with CCTV. It can also help business managers to manage their operation. For instance, it can reveal lameness in sheep in the lairage pens that would not otherwise be detected. If used correctly, CCTV can be a very useful tool to help business managers to ensure that they are compliant with the regulation and to manage their business operations.

My hon. Friend also mentioned enforcement. I will come to that at the end. Labelling was the other issue that a number of hon. Members raised, and I want to deal with that. There is a European Commission working group. The shadow Minister asked about the timing of the report. It is one of those EU reports that has been delayed and delayed. We initially expected it last summer, then we expected it in the new year, and the latest update that I have had is that it is still some months away, which I think reflects the fact that this is a difficult issue to get right.

Let me give some general pointers. First, there is a very clear legal definition, both in our own law and in European law, of what stunned means for the purposes of abattoirs. It is rendering an animal insensitive to pain instantly or almost instantly, so I think that we can be clear that we could have “Stunned” or “Unstunned” as a form of labelling. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire made a very good point about the inability to enforce that sometimes. It would not be easy and it would not necessarily protect all those people who were buying their food from catering establishments, either. There are difficulties in labelling things just as “Halal” or “Kosher”. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, not all parts of the carcase are deemed kosher, even though the animal may have been slaughtered by kosher methods, and there is no single, uniform interpretation of what halal means. Different imams have different interpretations of the rules. We therefore await the report from the European Commission. I have heard it said that there could be labelling that just said “Unstunned” if the animal had not been stunned, but again this, like other issues, is not easy.

[Ms Abbott]

I am always gripped by discussions about the European Commission, but will the Minister comment on the point that concerns my constituents, which is that for some of the people involved in the push against halal and shechita, animal welfare is merely a flag of convenience? That is what concerns my constituents. They are very happy to make slaughter safer and more humane, but they are worried about the motivation of some of the people who are pushing this issue and who keep coming back to it.

[George Eustice]

I know that the hon. Lady made that point previously. I do not think that there has been anything in the debate today to suggest that that is the case among hon. Members taking part in it, and indeed the motion itself makes it absolutely clear that it is looking just at the animal welfare issue, so I am not sure that we should go down that route.

In conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) pointed out, the Government have no plans at all to ban religious slaughter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that there is no intention to ban religious slaughter. However, everyone agrees that we need good enforcement of our existing legislation.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Does the Minister see any scope for progress on post-cut stunning, which would be a real step forward? Several hon. Members raised that.

[George Eustice]

Yes, and I am going to come to that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned enforcement and I can confirm that today, following a number of incidents, the FSA has begun a series of unannounced inspections of GB slaughterhouses, and by the end of March all approved slaughterhouses will have been subject to an unannounced inspection.

On the shadow Minister’s point, in the longer term, we may be able to learn lessons from other countries. Some other countries have managed to accommodate or reconcile the beliefs of Jewish and Muslim communities while having a slightly different approach from us. A number of countries, including Holland and France, do have a requirement for a post-cut stun in a particular time scale. It is not easy to get consensus among the religious communities for that, but we should also recognise, as I said at the beginning, that in many respects our national rules are better than those elsewhere in Europe, especially on the issue of inversion, which is, according to all advice, quite serious.

We have had a very good, informative debate, covering a wide range of issues. It has been a pleasure to be here to debate this issue again.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 January in Brussels. Rebecca Evans AM and Richard Lochhead MSP were also present.

Fisheries

Multiannual plan for fisheries in the Baltic sea

Commissioner Vella presented the proposal for a multiannual plan (MAP) for fisheries in the Baltic sea. I welcomed the proposal as it would be an important tool for achieving the aims of the reformed common fisheries policy but stressed the need for it to reinforce regionalisation. I argued that the inclusion of maximum sustainable yield ranges in the MAP did not infringe on the Council’s competence to set total allowable catches. France, Italy, Belgium and Spain however raised concerns that the proposal would impinge on the Council’s competence. France also raised issues with the current formulation of the proposed delegated acts.

AOB: The “Omnibus Regulation” implementing the landing obligation

The presidency affirmed that they wanted to reach an early deal with the European Parliament (EP) on the “Omnibus Regulation” removing legislative impediments to the implementation of the landing obligation. They asked member states if they could support a deal which prevented any weakening of the regulation, but included, at the request of the EP, a new obligation on member states to submit annual reports on the implementation of the landing obligation. I, along with a number of other member states, supported an early deal, subject to minimising the potential administrative burden of the new proposed reporting obligations. I also stressed, with support from Spain, Belgium, Ireland and Malta, that we did not want to see responsibility for dealing with undersized fish being placed on to the member states as a part of a final deal.

Agriculture

Pig meat trade with Russia

The presidency accepted Poland’s request for a discussion on the recent reports that some member states had been approached by Russia to reopen bilateral trade on pig meat. Poland along with the Baltic member states argued that the Russian ban on EU agriculture products was imposed simultaneously on all member states and therefore should be lifted in the same manner. I supported Poland and the Baltics and stressed that the EU should be united in its approach to Russia. Commissioner Andriukaitis argued that bilateral trade deals with Russia were unacceptable and that the Commission would not tolerate discrimination between member states.

Market developments, including the effects of the Russian import ban

There was a discussion on the situation in various market sectors. On dairy, Commissioner Hogan announced that private storage aid (PSA) for butter and skimmed milk powder would remain open until September 2015 but rejected calls for PSA for cheese. He agreed to consider the issue of staggered payment of milk super levy at the March Council, when more complete production figures for 2014-15 would be available. He also confirmed that he was considering what EU action could be taken to tackle exploitation in the supply chain. On fruit and vegetables, Commissioner Hogan maintained that the current measures were sufficient. On pig meat, however, he accepted they might have to consider new measures. In response to Italy’s concerns about falling EU sugar prices, Commissioner Hogan argued that the EU had benefited from historically high EU prices and underlined that producers had had many years to prepare for the end of quotas.

[HCWS284]

Contaminated Land (Householder Responsibility)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing the debate. I assure him that representing as I do a seat with towns built on the sites of 18th and 19th-century tin mining, I am well aware that contaminated land is still an issue in many parts of the country and that it has in no way gone away. The idea that it has is not the driver behind some of the changes we have made.

Contaminated land is a complex area and can cause hardship and anxiety for people, particularly where their homes are involved. The case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, where he suggested the cost could be £270,000, very much demonstrates that point. An estimated 90% of the remediation of contaminated sites is market-driven and occurs under the planning regime, but there will continue to be sites that are not suitable for further development, but require remediation.

I was interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s involvement in the passage of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As he knows, the contaminated land regime, as set out in part 2A of that Act, provides a risk-based approach to the identification and remediation of land where contamination poses an unacceptable risk to human health, property or the environment. Responsibility for identifying that contaminated land rests with the local authority, as set out under part 2A. Changes made to the part 2A statutory guidance in April 2012 have resulted in a more risk-based approach to identifying and remediating contaminated land, meaning that more resource can be directed to those sites most in need. From our discussions with local authorities, we know that the new statutory guidance is proving helpful to them and has helped to simplify a complex area.

Part 2A, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is based on the principle of polluter pays. Therefore, liability will always be apportioned in the first instance to the company or person that caused the pollution or knowingly permitted it to be caused. However, it is not always possible to identify the polluter. In some cases, the pollution was caused long ago, and the company responsible may since have folded. When that happens, the costs of remediation can fall to the site owner or the occupier of the land. That might be the local authority itself, but it can also be individual private householders. Crucially, however, local authorities are required to take into account the hardship that may be caused if all costs, or partial costs, are to be apportioned. When local authorities are reaching decisions over cost apportionment, hardship must be considered on a case-by-case basis, with regard given to the principles set out in the statutory guidance.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency matter relating to the Whatley gasworks in Somerset, I understand that in the case of the home owner on that site, no liable polluter could be identified. Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was unable to offer further funding this year, as the contingency fund was allocated to higher-priority sites, I can confirm that in previous years, capital grants totalling almost £90,000 have been issued for the same site to cover the costs of investigation. The hon. Gentleman was unclear about this, but my understanding is that, in the end, the local council agreed to bear the costs of remediation because it determined that hardship would be caused to the householders who owned the affected property had they been made to pay. I know that he questions whether that is the case, and I am more than willing to clarify that point after the debate, but my understanding is that the costs will be borne in this instance.

A related point about part 2A is that it is clear that where a class B person owns and occupies a dwelling on contaminated land, the council should consider waiving or reducing the costs of recovery if the person did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the land was contaminated when they brought it. My understanding is that the people in the case raised by the hon. Gentleman did have a survey carried out when they purchased the property many years ago, which is also a mitigating circumstance.

[Mr Heath]

The local authority has been as helpful as possible in this case and did identify both of those factors as arguments for waiving the fees. Nevertheless, it expressed concern that a number of other properties around the district council area will end up in similar circumstances. That would mean a substantial capital sum mounting up very quickly, which would be difficult for a small district council to support.

[George Eustice]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope to reassure him in a moment when I discuss some of the other things that we are doing to move from looking only at the hazard of contaminated land to a more risk-based approach. From 2012 onwards, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that councils do not unnecessarily identify sites that may well have some contamination but are not a priority. I am pleased that the case he has raised appears to have been resolved satisfactorily; however, he has put his finger on an important point, because other sites might be affected.

As I said at the start of my speech, it is important to recognise that an estimated 90% of the cleaning up of contaminated land in England and Wales is carried out through the planning system under the national planning policy framework. The Government encourage the focus on a market-based approach to dealing with contaminated land. One of the financial incentives provided by Government to encourage the re-development of contaminated land is land remediation relief, which allows companies to claim back corporation tax on 150% of the costs of dealing with contaminated land and is intended to influence developers’ decisions positively by increasing the profitability of redevelopment projects. We should also note that the existing environmental permitting regime for the current activities with the greatest potential to cause contamination is designed to ensure that no new part 2A contaminated sites are created.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the capital grant scheme is being phased out. I know that local authorities were disappointed when DEFRA announced in December 2013 that the contaminated land capital grants scheme would be closed. The phasing out of the grants scheme is regrettable, but it reflected a necessary shift to a more sustainable approach in the face of pressures on the public finances, of which the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, having been a DEFRA Minister himself. The cornerstone of our new approach was the revised guidance that we issued in 2012 that has saved local authorities and businesses money by giving much more clarity over how to decide whether affected sites need to be remediated.

In March 2014, we published DEFRA-funded research to develop new screening levels that will help public authorities and developers to screen out low-risk land from the need for further investigation and so prevent unnecessary remediation works. The crucial thing is to ensure that there is no obligation on local authorities to search for sites that might not be of particularly high risk and should not be a priority, thereby creating a potential liability for householders. By adopting a more risk-based, less hazard-based approach to these issues, we have helped to address some concerns.

The screening values that we published sit alongside DEFRA research that was published in 2012 on the normal background concentrations of contaminants. That forms part of a toolkit for use by the contaminated land sector that will help to ensure that pragmatic, evidence-based decisions can be taken, thereby reducing costs while ensuring a high level of protection to human health and the environment. DEFRA continues to support the national experts panel on contaminated land, the remit of which is to advise local authorities on difficult decisions under part 2A at more complex contaminated sites. The panel is available as a free resource for local authorities to access, and is intended to help where it is unclear whether a site should be determined as contaminated under part 2A. Case studies on the output of the panel’s work will be published so that all local authorities can benefit from the lessons learned.

In conclusion, we remain committed to ensuring that the appropriate policy tools are available to support local authorities in carrying out their duties under part 2A. Local authorities that require help and advice about how best to manage affected sites should obtain advice from industry experts where necessary. Authorities should also try to work with the owner of the land to see what benefits could be gained via the land remediation relief scheme. Although there will always be difficult cases that require more detailed consideration, the changes that we have introduced to the contaminated land management regime since 2012 have stimulated growth, enabled previously abandoned sites to be developed and returned to productive use, and delivered significant benefits for the economy, while maintaining a high degree of protection for human health and the environment.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on bringing this debate before the House. I hope I have been able to allay some of his concerns, both on the individual case that he raised, which I understand has now been resolved, and more widely.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way at this point. In the course of the debate, I have been advised that the matter has not yet been resolved. It might be a matter of loan or of grant, but the household concerned is still not absolutely clear about where the funding will come from.

[George Eustice]

In which case that is a disappointment, because I thought that we had found a solution. After the debate, I will discuss the case with my noble Friend Lord de Mauley, with whom I know the hon. Gentleman has previously corresponded. As I said, the local authority could show forbearance on a couple of grounds and waive the costs: first, on the grounds of hardship, for which there would seem to be a good case, given the high costs; and secondly, on the grounds that there was no reason why the householders should have known or had reason to know about the contamination, given that they had a survey conducted when they purchased the property. We will look further at the case and see whether a resolution can be found.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I hope that, owing to the efforts of the hon. Gentleman and the good intentions of the Minister, this matter can be cleaned up for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as soon as possible. I thank both participants for their contributions.