Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to the Liaison Committee and to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for securing the debate. I should also say that I am disappointed that, in a way, our debate has been undermined by the previous one. Let me reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), that although I am giving the Government response to the debate, we take this issue seriously across Government. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), gave evidence when the Environmental Audit Committee was considering the issue, and we work closely on it.

It is clear from today’s debate that people are very passionate about our overseas territories and the rich natural flora and fauna that they support. The UK has 14 very diverse overseas territories, 11 of which are inhabited, and between them they contain, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, about 90% of the biodiversity found in the UK and its overseas territories combined.

I shall start by talking about some of the constitutional issues, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) dedicated most of his contribution. Many of the recommendations made by the Committee and raised again today pertain to that aspect. The constitutional position was set out very clearly in the 2012 White Paper, “The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability”, published by the Foreign Office. It made it clear that although the Government have a fundamental objective and responsibility for the security and good governance of the territories, each has its own constitution and local laws, and powers are therefore devolved to the maximum extent possible.

The inhabited territories are constitutionally responsible for the protection and conservation of their natural environments and for developing appropriate environmental policies and legislation. There is no appetite in the territories for the UK Government to take a greater role in managing environmental issues on their behalf, but that is not to say that we cannot provide considerable support. I want to come on to that issue later.

[Joan Walley]

I will be brief, as our time is so constrained, but does the Minister not agree that there is a difference between management and a strategic overview?

[George Eustice]

There is, and I will come back to that point, because I want to talk about some of the international aspects.

The second issue that I want to touch on is that of staff, because several hon. Members have suggested that DEFRA has no one dedicated to this subject. In fact, there are four DEFRA staff working on overseas territories issues, and they include the head of our international biodiversity policy unit. The report suggested that there should be more visits by DEFRA staff to the overseas territories. I am sure that there would be no shortage of volunteers to undertake those visits to see the wonderful specimens of wildlife that we have there, but I question the value of spending money on air fares when we could be spending money on projects that will deliver and will enhance the biodiversity of these areas. Also, not carrying out physical visits to these areas does not mean that they are not in regular contact with their counterparts in the territories. They certainly are. For instance, earlier this week we were speaking to officials from Tristan da Cunha about the islands’ biosecurity needs and the exciting news that a new bird species may have been identified on one of the islands. I am told that it is a prion and similar to a kiwi. We await peer review of that new discovery.

We also organise workshops and training for the territories. For example, in March, officials organised a practical workshop on how to implement the convention on international trade in endangered species. It brought territory officials together with representatives from DEFRA, the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the JNCC, Kew gardens, Border Force and the Government Legal Service. We also offer access to expertise and a range of services, including a plant pest identification service provided through the Food and Environment Research Agency which helps to protect both biodiversity and agriculture in the territories. That service has helped the territories to put in place measures to combat invasive invertebrate pests, and has to date identified 16 species new to science.

There is also, of course, regular discussion at ministerial level. We have the Joint Ministerial Council, which brings together UK Ministers and territory leaders and representatives and is organised collaboratively. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that we should prioritise greater involvement of the territories in setting the agenda for those meetings, but I assure hon. Members that we already do that. We already have regular meetings with the UK-based representatives of the territory Governments in the run-up to Joint Ministerial Council meetings and, following discussions with them, we held Minister-led plenary sessions on the environment in 2012 and on renewable energy in 2013. Responding to specific territory requests, we also held in 2013 a technical discussion in which territory representatives were able to speak to UK experts on a range of environmental issues.

International agreements were mentioned by a number of speakers. As the Select Committee rightly pointed out, protection of the environments of the territories is relevant to the goals and targets set out in the convention on biological diversity’s strategic plan, which 193 countries around the world, including the UK, have already committed to implementing. As the Committee also pointed out, the convention has so far been extended only to four of the UK’s 14 overseas territories.

The Government recognise that most of the territories are small islands or island groups that face capacity constraints, which may affect their ability to consider or implement treaties. In such circumstances, we do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the territories, the UK or the wider environment to impose on the territories obligations that they are ill equipped to fulfil. We do, however, encourage territory Governments to join in the UK’s instrument of ratification of core multilateral environmental agreements. That includes working with them to ensure that they have the necessary measures in place to fulfil their obligations, providing technical advice and building capacity before extension of ratification takes place. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made clear, the Select Committee recommended that the CBD be extended to other overseas territories. Although we believe that that is a matter for the territories themselves, I am pleased to be able to inform hon. Members today that my officials are currently working with a further three territories on just such an extension of the CBD.

Funding is important. The Committee’s own report acknowledged that DEFRA spending on the UK overseas territories has increased since 2007-08, and increased sixfold between 2010-11 and 2012-13. We do that mainly through mechanisms such as Darwin Plus. That cross-Government grant scheme, co-funded by DEFRA, the FCO and the Department for International Development, funds environmental projects in many of the territories. In the past two years, Darwin Plus has committed nearly £3.7 million to 29 projects in the territories. Returning to the issue of international agreements, it is important to note that in many cases the grants that are offered help to deliver and advance the objectives that were set out by the territories in the environmental charters, when those were put together and agreed on in 2001.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at such short notice. In the Cayman Islands, there is a conservation fund, which comes from a tax levied on people when they leave the islands. That has allowed a pot of money—£40 million—to accumulate, but the authorities are not able to spend it, because there are not governance arrangements in effect. Does the Minister think it wise to be spending UK taxpayers’ money overseas when they already have their own resources but they do not have the governance measures to allow them to spend it?

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to the issue of the Cayman Islands. I am not familiar with the particular point that my hon. Friend has raised, but, consistent with the charters, I am able to say that, with UK Government support, the Cayman Islands’ long-awaited National Conservation Bill was passed on 13 December 2013. The law will, for the first time, give legal protection to Cayman’s unique and diverse land and marine-based natural resources. Although this is a delegated area of responsibility, the UK Government provided political support for the passing of the law, including through visits by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke about marine protected areas. The Government have been enthusiastic supporters of MPAs, having established the largest no-take MPA in the world in the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010. We have also established a 1 million sq km sustainable use MPA around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, 20,000 sq km of which is a no-take zone. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that in 2009 the UK provided the science that underpinned the declaration of the first Antarctic marine protected area.

I want to mention a couple of other points that were raised. One was about EU funding and LIFE+. I can confirm that the Government worked with NGOs to allow that European fund to be used on these projects, and we continue to work with them on that. An issue relating to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was raised. On that, one of the obstacles is that, in some of these countries, gambling is illegal. Nevertheless, certain organisations can already claim money.

We are running out of time, but let me say in conclusion that I think we have had a very good debate. I hope that I have managed to persuade hon. Members about our commitment to these issues, and we will be publishing on Monday—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order.

Migratory Birds (Malta)

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) on securing the debate and on bringing the subject to the attention of the House. He has a lifelong passion for such issues, being a member of the RSPB for some 50 years, as he said. Last time I debated with him in Westminster Hall, the subject was farmland birds, so I know that he is a long-standing campaigner. He is also in tune with the mood of many in the country.

Britain has always been a pioneer of conservation, and birds have always been at the forefront of this country’s passion for wildlife. Groups such as the RSPB are among those with the largest membership in the UK. As a result, wild birds have been afforded strong levels of protection in the UK since the introduction of the Protection of Birds Act 1954—a full 25 years before the EU birds directive made the protection of wild birds, in much the same manner, an obligation on all member states. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that my right hon. Friend, along with many others, was disturbed to see recent media coverage of the annual spring hunting season in Malta.

In reacting to such reports, it is important to bear in mind the distinctions between lawful hunting activity that the EU birds directive specifically permits member states to undertake, and the illegal hunting carried out by those acting outside the law. The directive provides a strong framework for the protection of all naturally occurring wild birds throughout the EU and requires each member state to take measures to ensure the protection, management and control of birds, their eggs, nests and habitats, and to maintain populations occurring within their range at levels that correspond to their particular ecological, scientific and cultural requirements. The directive, however, also lays down rules for the exploitation of such birds through hunting activity and permits the “judicious use” of wild birds for economic and recreational purposes.

Some species may be hunted for sport or food throughout the European Union, while certain others may be hunted only within specified territories. The birds directive is clear that any hunting activity must remain compatible with maintaining the populations of the species, and it contains safeguards to ensure that. The responsibility of individual member states and of the European Commission is to ensure the correct transposition of, and compliance with, EU directives. It is, however, a well known fact that the Commission has previously expressed concerns about the hunting of migratory birds in Malta. Permitting the spring hunting of turtle doves and quail has been the subject of particular Commission scrutiny to ensure that it is compliant with the directive.

Together with other islands in the Mediterranean, such as Crete and Cyprus, the islands of Malta play a vital role for many migratory species of bird during their long flight between Africa and Europe. The EU directive recognised that it is important for the birds to receive particular protection in spring, so that they may breed and build up their populations from the low point in their natural annual cycles. Some evidence suggests, in particular for turtle doves, that the impact on populations of spring hunting can be up to eight times higher than the impact of autumn hunting.

In 2009, as a result of such concerns, the European Commission referred Malta to the European Court of Justice for permitting the hunting of turtle doves and quail during their spring migration. The Court ruled that, by permitting that activity between 2004 and 2007, the Maltese Government had failed to comply with the derogation conditions associated with hunting and, as such, had failed to fulfil their obligations under the directive. The Court, however, also recognised that Malta’s unique bio-geographical circumstances restricted hunting opportunities in autumn, and it therefore reaffirmed Malta’s right to permit limited hunting in spring through a derogation from the birds directive, subject to meeting the stringent parameters of article 9(1)(c) of that directive.

[Sir John Randall]

I apologise for stopping the Minister mid-flow. What particular bio-geographical factors make hunting more difficult in the autumn?

[George Eustice]

I am told that the doves migrate through Malta, rather than being resident there. That was a conclusion of the Court—that the situation could not be dealt with in other ways, which was why it upheld the right. That was its judgment.

In response to the 2010 judgment, the Maltese Government developed a new legal framework and introduced a number of changes to how they control the spring hunting of turtle doves and quail to ensure compliance with the directive. Measures include annual estimations of the populations of species; limits on the number of birds that may be shot during the hunt under the derogation; and an assessment of whether the populations are likely to suffer any detrimental effect.

Despite the changes, a number of organisations and individuals have continued to campaign against the spring hunting permitted by the Maltese Government. I understand the concerns expressed, but it is for the Maltese Government to investigate any alleged illegal hunting activity that might be taking place alongside their permitted hunting regime. We should also bear in mind, as a number of Members have pointed out, that the issue is an incredibly contentious one in Malta itself. It has been said that more than 10% of the population have signed a petition calling for a referendum—as my right hon. Friend pointed out, it already has up to 45,000 signatures and it is being considered.

Fortuitously, I was in Athens over the past few days, at an informal meeting of the European Council. Knowing that the debate was coming up, I had the opportunity to discuss the subject briefly with my opposite number, Roderick Galdes, on the margins of one of the meetings. In fairness, the Maltese Government believe that they have done a lot to tackle the illegal killing of doves, and they feel frustrated that that has not been recognised. He highlighted some of the steps that Malta has taken to strengthen enforcement. It now has the highest ratio of enforcement deployment possible per square kilometre of countryside anywhere in Europe. He also pointed out that Malta’s penalties and legal deterrents against bird-related crime are among the most severe in Europe. He stressed that there had been some 4,000 physical inspections. I am simply pointing out the argument made by the Maltese Government.

[Sir John Randall]

We are talking about the illegal hunting not only of turtle doves, or quail for that matter—far from it—but of other species, which is well documented. That is what does not seem to have been tackled.

[George Eustice]

Yes. I am simply reporting the argument of the Maltese Government. As I said, I took the opportunity to discuss the matter briefly with my opposite number. They feel that they are not given credit for the steps they have taken, which they argue have resulted in a very tight regime, with tough reporting requirements.

Where there is evidence to suggest that illegal hunting activity is occurring, the UK Government encourage all relevant authorities to ensure that sufficiently robust action is taken. As I have stated, compliance with the European Union directives, including any alleged failings, is a matter for the individual member states and for the European Commission. Representations have been made, for example by a number of MEPs in the European Parliament, and many organisations and members of the public may also express their concerns through their MEPs.

Finally, turning to the situation here, sadly a number of the UK’s migratory bird species have experienced population declines over recent decades. A range of factors are thought to have contributed to that trend, many of which we discussed in the previous debate on this issue, including habitat loss from historical farming intensification, poor food availability and disease.

The impact that overseas hunting may have on British populations of migratory birds is unclear at the moment. Malta’s geographic position means it is unlikely that a significant proportion of our migratory bird populations pass over it; most are thought to come through places such as Gibraltar. We therefore think that spring hunting in Malta is unlikely to be having a direct impact on populations here. However, my right hon. Friend has made the valid point that he is not taking a British but a European perspective on the issue, and it may be having an impact on populations elsewhere.

Domestically, we have implemented a range of initiatives to help improve bird populations. When I last discussed the issue with my right hon. Friend, we talked at great length about the environmental stewardship schemes and the new environmental land management schemes. Turtle doves are one of six targeted species for funding in the current regime, and we expect that the new environmental land management schemes will see further benefits for farmland birds. We have made it clear that we want to prioritise biodiversity.

We are aware that illegal hunting and killing activity is a problem for many countries that are important in the life cycle of migratory birds—that is the case with Malta. This issue therefore needs strong co-operation and enforcement activity at every level. In the UK, the joint nature conservation committee has always played a leading role in the international action plan for African and Eurasian migratory land birds. We are playing our part and continue to make the case on these issues.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend once more on securing the debate. As I said, he has long championed these issues. This is a contentious issue in Malta as well. I am not sure that a British intervention will necessarily help Malta to make up its mind, given that the issue is so contentious and so many people there have expressed clear views on it. The debate has been an interesting one that has highlighted an issue that is important to many people.

[Sir John Randall]

I believe there are three minutes left, Mrs Main—

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 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 24 March. Richard Lochhead MSP was also present.

Promotion of agricultural produce

The Council agreed its political approach to national co-financing and selection of programme proposals for promotion of agricultural produce. It set the ceiling for EU funding at 75%—85% in times of crisis—with producers making up the difference and national co-financing removed, in line with UK lobbying.

Management of sand eel—establishment of a total allowable catch (TAC) for 2014

The Council adopted by qualified majority a Council regulation setting up TACs in 2014 for sand eels and blue whiting. The UK abstained as the Council regulation had not cleared parliamentary scrutiny.

Coastal states consultations on mackerel and EU/Norway bilateral consultations

The Council discussed the outcome of the negotiations. The deal on mackerel reached between the EU, Norway and the Faroe islands 12 March was a major achievement, bringing to an end the long-running international dispute over the management of what is the UK’s most valuable stock. The Commission confirmed that discussions with Iceland would continue in the hope that it would also join the agreement.

The conclusion of a deal on mackerel also enabled bilateral fisheries agreements to be reached between the EU and Norway and the Faroe islands. These allow the joint management of shared stocks and give access to each other’s waters for 2014.

Overall the three agreements were supported by member states, though some expressed their concerns about the extension of the fully documented fisheries (FDF) scheme for North sea plaice in the EU-Norway agreement. The UK welcomed the agreements given the benefits they will provide for UK fishermen and responded to the concerns on extension of the FDF scheme by highlighting the importance of pilot projects to prepare for the discard ban. The Commission supported the UK position on FDF.

Processed meat labelling

The Council was divided on indications of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat used as an ingredient. During discussions three broad camps emerged: the UK and others favoured the current voluntary approach; a second group favoured mandatory labelling and a third group said that further discussion was necessary. The presidency decided to convene a working party to examine the report and member state positions further.

Organic production

The Commission reported on its organic production proposal which aims to support the increased demand, while taking account of consumer standards, the risk of fraud and the need for transparency. It also encourages spending of both pillar 1 and pillar 2 funds on research and innovation in this area. There was no discussion, and the presidency confirmed that the proposal would now go to working group.

Fruit and vegetables

The Commission presented its report on the ED fruit and vegetable production sector following the reform of the sector in 2007. ED Fruit and vegetable consumption had reduced since the reform. However the percentage of the EU’s fruit and vegetables grown by producers that are members of producer organisations had increased during the same period. The Commission stated that it would bring forward specific proposals, with a focus on improving the long-term competitiveness of the sector. Again, there was no discussion but the presidency confirmed that this topic would be on a future Council agenda.

Any other business

Honey breakfast initiative

Slovenia explained its “honey breakfast” initiative which aimed to educate children on the importance of bees.

International year of family farming

Hungary reported on the convention it had hosted to celebrate the international year of family farming. The Commission noted that it would run a conference on the same topic in Bucharest next month.

Rice

Italy and other member states said that their rice sector was under pressure from imports from Cambodia. The Commission noted that the import tariffs imposed on developing countries had been zero rated to encourage development and that it would keep the situation under review.

Dairy sector

Member states maintained the same positions outlined in last month’s discussion on the situation in the dairy sector. The Commission and presidency again noted the lack of a qualified majority in favour of the “soft-landing” on quotas and that the Commission would report in June.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing

Spain, supported by other member states, said it was firmly committed to combating IUU fishing, but was disappointed with the implementation of the regulation. They also had concerns about the transparency of the process for listing non-co-operating countries. The Commission disagreed that the process for listing non-co-operating countries was opaque or that they were not committed to the regulation. The Commission confirmed that the regulation would be reviewed next year but for now it was focused on its implementation.

Elliott Review and Food Crime

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Westminster Hall

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

As always in these debates, I have many questions to answer and not a great deal of time, but I will do my best. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing the debate, which has provided us with an excellent opportunity to explore the interim report on the integrity and assurance of food supply networks and for me to update colleagues on activities since the discovery of horsemeat fraud in 2013.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, the horsemeat fraud incident last year inflicted considerable damage on our food industry and undermined confidence in our food. It was damaging to the retailers and processors involved, and that should drive home to all of them the reality that they have more to lose than anyone by cutting corners or allowing the integrity of our food supply chain to be compromised.

Food fraud is completely unacceptable. It is a crime. The competitive pressures of the marketplace, to which my hon. Friend referred, are no excuse for misleading consumers and committing fraud, so lessons must be learned by all involved. The Government take the threat of food fraud very seriously and want to ensure that lessons are learned. That is why we asked Professor Elliott to look into what could be done to protect the food chain and to restore consumer confidence following the horsemeat fraud scandal.

As all hon. Members here know, Professor Elliott published his interim report in December 2013. We should note that, in it, he makes it clear that UK consumers have access to some of the safest food in the world, so it is not all bad. However, there is no room for complacency. Professor Elliott sets out what he has identified as the key features of a national food crime prevention strategy. The interim report includes no fewer than 48 recommendations, which Professor Elliott has been discussing with the industry and the Government as part of the consultation process for the preparation of his final report. The Government have also been discussing the interim report with interested parties. My hon. Friend specifically asked whether we were discussing the issue with retailers and with industry, and I can confirm that we are. Whenever I have meetings with retailers, it is one of the issues on our agenda.

There are 48 recommendations, but we can break down Professor Elliott’s report into three key themes. First, he identifies a package of measures in relation to testing and enforcement. Secondly, a big part of his report is dedicated to responsibilities in the supply chain, both on retailers and on processors. Finally, there are issues relating to the co-ordination of Government efforts, the links between Government agencies and co-ordination between Government agencies and local authorities. Professor Elliott raises important issues relating to all three areas, and we will consider carefully the supporting analysis in his final report before making a formal response.

However, there is much that we are already implementing, and I want to spend a little time highlighting what has already been done. First, the Government have increased their funding to support local authorities’ co-ordinated programme of food sampling from £1.6 million to £2.2 million in 2013-14. The Food Standards Agency and DEFRA are helping to target local authority resources through greater central co-ordination of intelligence, by providing additional support for complex investigations, by making available some of the funding for additional training and through prioritised sampling to target delivery at areas of agreed national importance.

Secondly, an intelligence hub has been established in the FSA to improve its capability to identify and prevent threats to food safety and integrity, based on the approach to intelligence used by the police. City of London police is heavily involved in that. That intelligence hub approach, which brings together local authorities, the police, the FSA and other interested parties, is a key step towards improving co-ordination, the need for which was highlighted in Professor Elliott’s interim report and which many hon. Members have referred to today. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet also talked about the importance of information sharing, particularly with industry. We are working with industry to tackle some of the commercial sensitivities that can act as a barrier to information sharing. The FSA is doing some work to improve its access to industry information.

Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) pointed out, the food fraud experienced last year was a problem at a European level, so we need action at a European level to tackle it. Despite famously being quite Eurosceptic, I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that we recognise the problem to be a European one, and that we need action at a European level. The new European food crime unit, which is being developed by the European Commission, will be an important part of that intelligence network. The FSA is working with the European Commission and with other member states to get the unit up and running as soon as possible.

Several hon. Members have talked about the importance of enforcement, and particularly pursuing convictions for the offences committed last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked why more had not been done. Action has been taken to try to secure convictions for the offences committed last year. Those investigations are taking a little longer than many people would hope, because they are quite complex and cross many national boundaries. A number of police authorities across Europe are involved: Dutch, Polish, Danish, Italian, French and our own. Because the crimes were committed on a pan-European level across borders, it is taking time to deliver those convictions.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is it not the case that the horse has bolted, to coin a phrase, and that those who have perpetrated the crimes will be long gone?

[George Eustice]

I do not accept that. Investigations are continuing at a number of sites across the UK. City of London police is co-ordinating the police forces for all the investigations. Five arrests have been made, and the announcement a couple of weeks ago by the Crown Prosecution Service of two cases being taken to court demonstrates that action is being taken to protect consumers from mislabelling and to tackle food businesses’ failure to ensure the traceability of the products that they supply.

The hon. Member for Ogmore talked about the penalties for committing food fraud crimes. The penalty for food offences can range from giving advice or a formal notice for very trivial breaches, such as if a mistake has been made on labelling, to criminal prosecutions for the most serious offences such as fraud. We should bear in mind that when it comes to fraud, it is possible to implement a prison sentence of 10 years. I think that there are sufficient penalties in our criminal law to tackle the most serious cases.

Several hon. Members have talked about the role of the industry, which is one of the key themes picked up by Professor Elliott. As I said at the outset, the food industry has the most to lose from a decline in confidence in the supply chain, and it has a responsibility to take a leading role. As of today, the industry has submitted more than 45,000 tests of beef products for horsemeat since the horsemeat scandal broke, and no new positives have been reported since the height of the incident. Retailers and processors have taken a thorough approach to testing. The tests are being carried out through the supply chain, not only by retailers but by processors, looking at the ingredients going into products in local convenience stores as well as large national retailers.

Food businesses and trade associations representing the whole food chain are also working with the FSA and Professor Elliott to consider how to make better use of audit and controls. Professor Elliott is keen to develop ways of achieving a more streamlined and effective auditing process.

[Laura Sandys]

I welcome the Minister’s full response. Is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs working, in its strategy section, on early warning systems when commodity prices are going up but food prices are going up only a little bit, totally disproportionately? That must be an important signal that gives Government the sense that something is not quite right.

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that point, but I will deal with it now because my hon. Friend has raised it. She highlighted passionately in her speech the fact that there has not been as much of an increase in retail food prices as there has been in commodity prices. That can be normal, because commodity prices tend to cover a small number of products, whereas there is a broader range of products in food stores. There has been a 12% rise in food prices in real terms between 2007 and 2012, with the biggest spike in 2008.

In many debates on food banks and the like—I notice that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is not here—I am told repeatedly that the price of food in the shops is going up. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet highlighted the frozen cottage pie that cost £1 and did not go up in price again, but food prices at the retail end have gone up by 12%, and the fact that certain individual products have stayed the same price may come down to pricing strategies and promotion, so we cannot read too much into such examples. I recognise her point, however. The FSA has reviewed its emerging risks programme, and it is working with DEFRA to identify and assess the economic drivers of food fraud so that those influencing factors are better understood and acted on.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I asked how DEFRA would work with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to ensure that there was a co-ordinated plan. Will the Minister comment on that?

[George Eustice]

Again, that is something that I was going to come on to. Food enforcement is a devolved responsibility. The Elliott review was commissioned by the UK Government, but it is being followed with close interest by the devolved Administrations and we are discussing it with them.

Some hon. Members have suggested that the supply chain is too long and too complex. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that my family run a farm shop and butchery, the slogan of which is “Food yards, not food miles.” I have a clear interest in such issues. It is a valid point that small businesses and small retailers may often have far less complex supply chains, and we can learn from that. The horsemeat fraud incident demonstrated the higher vulnerability of some of the more complex supply chains, and many retailers are learning the lessons from that. One could argue that there has been an over-reliance on the paperwork involved in all the systems for traceability and following products from processor to retailer. The onus is on larger retailers to take much greater interest in where their food comes from.

I want to pick up on a few of the other points that were made. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet that we should not be seen as a soft touch. It is worth remembering that the EU-wide testing programme discovered less than 1% of products in the UK that were affected by the horsemeat scandal, compared with an average of 4% to 5% in other European countries. Although we are not complacent, we had a more robust system than did many other countries. She also highlighted the fact that there are 111 inspectors in Holland, but I point out that Holland has a slightly different approach. In our local authorities in this country, we have more than 2,700 inspectors; it is simply that they are not in a dedicated unit but sit within trading standards.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned adverse reports from local authorities that have done their own inspections. It is encouraging that local authorities are stepping up to the mark and carrying out such inspections. As I pointed out, there are two reasons why the figures can look misleadingly high. First, local authorities tended to investigate where there had been complaints, so we would expect them to have found more problems. Secondly, many of the problems that they found were mislabelling, foreign-language labelling or things not being in the right place. Only a small number were food adulteration.

I am afraid that I have run out of time. We welcome this debate, which has been a great opportunity to explore the issues highlighted by Professor Elliott, and we look forward to his final report.

Common Fisheries Policy

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Written Statements

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

The UK Government are today launching a package of public consultations concerning the implementation of reforms to the common fisheries policy (CFP).

As part of the reform of the CFP, a new basic regulation and common market organisation of fishery and aquaculture products (CMO) entered into force on 1 January 2014. The new European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF), which will support our fishing industry under these reforms, is due to be adopted shortly. The package of consultations being launched today covers aspects from all three of these areas.

Securing fundamental reform of the CFP was crucial, but successfully implementing these reforms is of equal importance to ensure that we can safeguard our marine environment and all those who rely on it.

One the most important achievements of the CFP reform negotiations is the phased introduction of a landing obligation, also known as a discard ban. The landing obligation will put an end to the wasteful practice of discarding, preventing fish being thrown back into the sea after being caught unless under very specific exemptions. This will start in 2015 for pelagic fisheries, and be rolled out to other fisheries from 2016.

The consultations launched today set out the Government’s proposed approach to implementing the pelagic landing obligation in England. Some of the main issues that we are gathering views on include how we will ensure our stocks are managed sustainably, how we monitor compliance and how we manage available quota to match it to the catch that would previously have been discarded.

At the same time we are seeking views on how we can best use the EMFF to support implementation of the reformed common fisheries policy. We are also consulting on a new national aquaculture strategy and how we implement changes to the fish labelling legislation in England and introduce new legislation on marketing standards in England and Wales for fishery and aquaculture products.

The CFP reform has attracted interest and passion from many different groups. A key element to making these reforms work in practice will be continuing to work closely with all those affected. This is why my Department will continue to work closely with the fishing industry and other interested groups as we develop our policy to implement these reforms.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

6. What progress has been made on the implementation of the recommendations of the Elliott review of assurance of food supply networks.

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

They were interim recommendations; Professor Elliott’s final report is expected later this spring. We are discussing the interim report with interested parties, and we will carefully consider the supporting analysis in his final report before making a formal response.

[Julie Hilling]

People need to be confident that what is on the packet is what is in the packet. The Prime Minister’s machinery of government changes in 2010 created confusion of responsibility between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Prime Minister’s short-sighted changes weakened consumer protection and were misguided?

[George Eustice]

No, I do not agree with that. It was right to separate policy making from enforcement. The issue we had with horsemeat was not a failure of policy: it was a failure of enforcement. Since then, we have increased funding to £2.2 million to help to support local authorities to deliver the national co-ordinated food sampling programme. The Food Standards Agency is also developing a new intelligence hub to improve its capability in identifying and preventing threats, and to co-ordinate action across Government.

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

Professor Elliott confirmed the findings of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that we have a severe shortage of public analysts and laboratories. He further found a gap in checks on cold-slab meats in cold storage and transportation. Can the Government act now, before the final Elliott report, to make good the testing by public analysts and public laboratories, and to address the other issues that Professor Elliott identified?

[George Eustice]

We will look carefully at the recommendation in Elliott’s final report, but the Food Standards Agency is working with industry and the European Commission to identify further targeted sampling programmes that could be carried out. As I said, we have increased the budget from £1.6 million to £2.2 million to help support local authorities. We have also introduced unannounced inspections of meat-cutting plants, and there have been more than 1,450 of those since 2013.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some recommendations of the Elliott report refer to devolved matters and others to matters that are reserved across the UK. It is important that the UK Government, the Scottish Government, and other Administrations work closely together. When did the Minister last meet Scottish Ministers to discuss how we can ensure a co-operative approach across the UK on this important issue?

[George Eustice]

I meet Ministers from the devolved Assembly regularly. Most recently, I met last Monday the Scottish Minister responsible for farming and fisheries. We did not discuss this particular issue, but when the final report is published we will discuss its findings. We have had some discussions about the interim findings, and further discussions are taking place at official level.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the potential threat to our domestic food supply presented by changes to the common agricultural policy, particularly with regard to food produced in the uplands? If so, what plans do he and our Government have to protect, or ensure that there is a decent successor to, the upland entry level scheme?

[George Eustice]

We are in the process of concluding our implementation of the common agricultural policy, and we have made it clear that we will align the upland rate of the single farm payment with the lowland rate. We will shortly make an announcement on the moorland rate, which I know will interest the hon. Gentleman.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Answers to recent questions that I tabled show a massive drop in food testing under this Government: tests on food composition are down by 48%, and those on food labelling and presentation by 53%. Does the Minister share Professor Chris Elliott’s concern that cuts to food testing and inspection could compromise the safety of the food that people eat to such an extent that “people start to die”?

[George Eustice]

I am not sure I share that analysis. Since this crisis erupted more than 45,000 tests of beef products have been reported, and there have been no new positives since the reported incident of horsemeat last year. As I pointed out, we have also introduced unannounced inspections of meat-cutting plants, and there have been almost 1,500 of those since last year.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

8. Whether he has considered the recommendation of the Environmental Audit Committee in its eleventh report, Plastic Bags, HC 861, that the Government should remove the exemption of biodegradable bags from their proposed levy on single-use carrier bags; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to protect bees.

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

Bees and other pollinators are vital for the environment and our food production. We want to ensure they survive and thrive. The national pollinator strategy was drafted with the help of many interested organisations and is out to consultation. It refreshes our commitment to safeguarding bees and building on our long-established policies to support pollinators, including habitat and species conservation.

[Andrew Selous]

In Leighton Buzzard and Linslade, Leighton-Linslade town council, Central Bedfordshire council and South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth have done excellent work in encouraging bees by planting wild flowers and leaving areas of grass uncut. That has made a huge difference—a lot of volunteers are onside. Will the Minister agree to come to see that work to see whether it can be replicated elsewhere? Perhaps at least one of his officials could come.

[George Eustice]

Yes, the initiative in Leighton Buzzard my hon. Friend describes is an excellent example of good practice in action. I will be delighted to visit his constituency in Leighton Buzzard—[Laughter]—and see the project myself.

[Mr Speaker]

A wonderful outbreak of good humour in the Chamber is always appreciated.

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

We have made financial support available under the European fisheries fund to reimburse up to 60% of the cost of replacing lost or damaged gear. The Government will continue to pay lighthouse dues for another year, saving the industry up to £140,000. Various other support is available for businesses, including the option to apply to their local authority to get business rate relief for three months.

[Tim Loughton]

I congratulate the Minister on the recent announcement on helping very hard-pressed fishermen, who have been the unsung victims of recent floods. I am awaiting a reply from him to my letter—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] It was written only recently and a holding reply has been received, so I am not complaining. While the help for the replacement of lobster pots and other gear is welcome in Shoreham, many of my fishermen have heavily mortgaged boats and cannot afford to pay their mooring fees and other such overheads. Can some assistance be given as a stop-gap to ensure they do not lose their moorings?

[George Eustice]

I will follow up with a response to my hon. Friend’s letter. The Department for Transport is looking at what support may be made available to help with ports. We are considering whether fishermen will be able to receive additional help from the business support fund, which, as I said, is being administered by local authorities, but I am happy to look into the individual cases he raises.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Welcome as the package is, I seek further reassurance from the Minister. Fishermen are having difficulty engaging with the scheme. If they have purchased the replacement pots already, they cannot receive any recompense, and the pots also have to have been lost on land.

[George Eustice]

On the latter point, I do not think that that is the case, but the Marine Management Organisation might want to see some evidence that the pots have been damaged or lost. In many cases, the MMO accepts a straightforward statement signed by a fisherman. There is an issue with retrospective payment, as the European Fisheries Fund does not allow for retrospectivity and we have had some discussions with the Commission. We are trying to get a better handle on how many fishermen are affected—we think it may be somewhere between 15 and 20 fishermen—so we are looking into this issue, and I had a meeting with officials on it just yesterday.

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

Fishermen in my constituency have been affected by the storms and by the dumping of dredged oil in Whitsand bay. Will my hon. Friend inform me of the cost of carrying out a survey on a recently identified alternative more suitable site, and join me in discussions with the dredging company?

[George Eustice]

I am aware that this is a very important issue to my hon. Friend. I visited her constituency and met some of her constituents who had concerns about the dredging. As she will know, the MMO makes licensing decisions of this sort in isolation from Ministers—it is separate. However, I can tell her that I have asked for an assessment of the cost of the environmental impact assessments necessary to designate a new site. I am advised that it would be approximately £130,000. I am, of course, happy to meet her and the chief executive of the dredging company to see whether we can identify a way forward.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

T3. The Minister was kindly in his place yesterday when I moved the ten-minute rule motion to introduce a Bill on dog smuggling. Does he think this is an issue or does he think that those who are concerned about it are being over-alarmist? Would he be kind enough to meet me, along with one or two of the Bill’s co-sponsors and the dog charities involved, to discuss whatever his view and that of his officials happens to be?

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

I very much enjoyed attending the hon. Gentleman’s ten-minute rule Bill debate yesterday, as well as following his many questions on the issue since the new year. I have met officials on a number of occasions to review our approach and check that we have the right safeguards in place to prevent rabies coming in. There were some changes to the pet travel scheme, but we still think it is very stringent, in that all dogs coming in must be vaccinated and go through a period of three weeks before they can be moved. Nevertheless, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the issue. I can also say that the European Commission is giving some consideration to rescue dogs coming from Romania. There was a little bit of concern last week about an incident where a dog with suspected rabies came from Romania to the Netherlands, even though that was subsequently ruled out.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

T4. I know that the Secretary of State likes visiting chocolate factories, so may I urge him to come and visit the Thorntons factory in my constituency and join me in praising it for the 10% increase in exports it enjoyed last year? That increase was part of the overall growth in exports by the food and drink manufacturing industry, which is a great way of taking this country’s economy forward.

[George Eustice]

I would be more than happy to come and visit a Thorntons factory. Thorntons is a fabulous chocolate manufacturer and a great success story in the UK. My hon. Friend is right: the food and drink industry is our biggest manufacturing industry in the UK. There is great potential for export opportunities, which is why the Government have an export plan and why we have prioritised exports and done a huge amount of work to open new markets.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Following on from the earlier question from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), 18 months ago there was a fire at a JL Sorting site in my constituency that took weeks to put out, but since then nothing has been done to remove the many tonnes of debris on the site and that is causing great concern as it is an eyesore and might lead to health problems. Will the Minister look again at how he can bring about change through the Environment Agency to ensure quicker enforcement to get rid of such debris more quickly?

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

T5. The Minister will be aware of the importance of recreational sea angling around the coast of west Wales. Have the Government conducted any economic study of its importance to jobs, and what they can do to protect them?

[George Eustice]

Last November I attended the launch of Sea Angling 2012, which did just that. It found that, in 2012, English anglers had spent £831 million on the sport. When indirect and induced effects are accounted for, that could support a total of more than £2 billion of spending. The report is available on the Marine Management Organisation’s website.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Will the Government please have another look at the exclusion of 70,000 leaseholders from their new flood insurance scheme? Most of those people are on modest or low incomes, and a number of them live in my constituency. As a result of their exclusion from the scheme, they either face massively increased premiums or cannot obtain insurance at all.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

T6. Does my hon. Friend agree that the practice of puppy farming is a disgrace, and will he do all that he possibly can to discourage pet shops from selling kittens and puppies?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is a long-standing champion of this cause. I agree with him that irresponsible breeding and selling of dogs is unacceptable, and we think that the relevant authorities should clamp down on it. Anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs must have a valid licence from the local authority, and must also abide by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Many pet shops have already stopped selling kittens and puppies, but we are more concerned about internet sales of puppies, to which animal welfare charities have drawn our attention.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Yesterday was the first anniversary of the death of 14-year-old Jade Lomas-Anderson after being attacked by four dogs in my constituency. The new legislation is welcome, but it does not solve the problem of dangerous dogs. What further plans does the Minister have to protect our communities, educate children and dog owners, tackle puppy farming, and prevent dogs from becoming dangerous in the first place?

[George Eustice]

Unless dogs are bred properly and socialised properly, they may become violent in adulthood. That is a big challenge for us, but we have increased sentences for those responsible for attacks on people by dogs, and we have changed the law so that prosecutions can be brought even when an attack takes place on private property.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

T7. Given the Secretary of State’s popular and correct decision to cancel the private finance initiative credit given to the Kingsland incinerator, and given that incineration is near the bottom of the waste hierarchy, does the Minister agree that the green investment bank should be investing in green technologies higher up the hierarchy, and that that does not include flawed incineration projects?

Veterinary Products Committee

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Written Statements

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

I have received the annual report of the Veterinary Products Committee and its Sub-Committee 2013, which has been published today.

Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am pleased to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Veterinary Products Committee and its Sub-Committee and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

Illegal Wildlife Trade

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on securing this timely debate on a subject that is of great concern to the Government and the international community. I know from looking through the record that my right hon. Friend championed it consistently at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments.

As my right hon. Friend said, the rapid increase in the illegal wildlife trade and the poaching that feeds it is creating a crisis. Tens of thousands of elephants were killed last year, more than 1,000 rhinos lost their lives to poaching and trafficking, and tigers and many other species are under ever greater threat. In a debate organised by the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) characteristically painted a touching and vivid picture about the intelligence and thoughtfulness of elephants. He told the story of two elephants, Jenny and Shirley, who had been in captivity together. They were put in a zoo in early life—one was a calf at the time—and spent a year or so together, but they were then put in separate zoos, where they remained for 20 years. They were unexpectedly reunited at the end of their lives in a sanctuary in Tennessee. As my hon. Friend described it, the love and commitment that those two elephants still felt for each other after 20 years was absolutely touching. It is a disaster that so many of those wonderful creatures are being slaughtered for their ivory. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, it is not only charismatic animals such as the African elephant that are threatened, but lots of other species such as the African vulture.

The illegal wildlife trade is not only an environmental crisis but a serious global criminal industry. It is worth billions every year, and it is ranked alongside drugs, arms and people trafficking. There is increasing evidence of involvement by organised criminal gangs using ever more sophisticated weapons and equipment and exploiting political instability.

The lives of those working hard to protect endangered wildlife are at risk. At least 1,000 park rangers have been killed over the past decade alone. My right hon. Friend rightly highlighted that concern and asked what we can do to protect the rangers who do that difficult and dangerous task. Although it is the responsibility of individual countries to enforce the law, several actions in the declaration adopted by the London conference are about strengthening law enforcement. We have announced a £10 million fund, and I can confirm that we are looking at one or two projects to support that type of work and improve countries’ ability to enforce the law and protect park rangers carrying out that difficult task.

Tackling this organised criminality would help enhance the rule of law and improve stability and good governance. Those are the conditions that allow for the development of sustainable economic opportunities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs saw for himself in Kenya last year the benefits that can come from concerted efforts to tackle the trade by working with local communities.

I want to say a little about the London conference, about which my right hon. Friend spoke. We recognise that the illegal wildlife trade is a global problem that needs a global solution. The UK has always been determined to play its part, which is why we were pleased to host the London conference on the illegal wildlife trade on 13 February. The conference was based on three key themes: first, improving law enforcement; secondly; reducing demand; and thirdly, creating alternative sustainable livelihoods for communities that have a problem with poaching.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my DEFRA colleague Lord de Mauley chaired the conference. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry attended the morning plenary session. More than 40 countries attended and 10 international organisations were present. I am pleased to report that the conference was a great success. The ambitious political declaration that was endorsed by the 42 participating countries contained 25 specific commitments, including a requirement for Governments to renounce the use of any products from species threatened with extinction. Countries also committed to support the CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species—commercial prohibition on international trade in elephant ivory until the survival of elephants in the wild is no longer threatened by poaching.

The declaration also contains a commitment to treat poaching and trafficking as serious organised crimes, in the same category as drugs, arms and people trafficking. Together, the 25 actions, with high-level political support, represent a turning point in the effort to halt and reverse the current poaching crisis that my right hon. Friend so eloquently explained.

The conference heard first hand from the Presidents of Botswana, Chad, Gabon and Tanzania, and from the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia, who announced the elephant protection initiative, which aims to secure new funding from private and public sources for the implementation of the African elephant action plan. The elephant protection initiative includes a commitment to an extended moratorium on ivory sales, as well as plans to put ivory stocks beyond economic use.

As I said, one of the aims of the elephant protection initiative is to generate additional private funding, and we understand that around $2 million has already been identified. The Foreign Secretary has said that, in principle, he is open to looking at whether some of the £10 million fund we have set aside could be used to support that initiative. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, it is important that action does not end with the conference and the declaration—we need the follow-through. We must ensure that commitments are translated into urgent, concrete actions on the ground in the weeks and months to come.

I would like to say a little about the next steps, the first of which is to ensure that we in the UK are meeting our commitments as effectively as possible. The London conference was the result of close working between four Government Departments—DEFRA, the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the Home Office. It was a good example of Departments coming together in a coherent, joined-up way, and that is the approach we want to promote going forward. The issue should not be left to any one Department because it crosses many different briefs. The fact that so many Ministers attended the conference underlined our commitment to such an approach.

My right hon. Friend asked what we in the UK are doing, particularly on law enforcement and the interception of illegal trade. In February, we published the document “UK Commitment to Action on the Illegal Wildlife Trade”, which set out what we are doing across Government. We are committed to reporting against that commitment in a year’s time. Action is already under way. For example, as part of our commitment to fighting the illegal wildlife trade, the UK recently formally extended the convention on international trade in endangered species to the British territory of Anguilla. We have already announced that we will use a £10 million DFID funding package to support our partners in their efforts to tackle the trade, and we will soon announce how to apply for that fund.

The momentum generated by the London conference is also continuing internationally. It is important to note that several countries made announcements at the conference that demonstrated their commitment. For example, Canada announced an additional $2 million in emergency funding to combat the illegal wildlife trade in east and central Africa; Cameroon announced that its ongoing five-year emergency action plan to combat international wildlife crime, worth £120 million, will continue; the US announced its national strategy for combating wildlife trafficking; Gabon announced plans to impose new penalties for poachers and traffickers; and Ethiopia committed to destroying its ivory stockpiles. In addition to all that, of course, was the commitment I mentioned earlier to the elephant protection initiative, which a number of African countries are taking forward.

Those announcements were made at the conference, but it is worth pointing out that momentum has continued afterwards—Chad recently burned its 1.1 tonne ivory stockpile and Vietnam has strengthened its protection of endangered species. The challenge now is to build on and harness that momentum and ensure that the commitments in the London declaration are delivered. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, Botswana will host a follow-up conference in 2015 to review progress against the commitments made in the London declaration. The UK will support Botswana in its preparations for that.

In conclusion, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to highlight the success story of the recent London conference. It agreed ambitious measures, showed new political commitment, and marked a turning point in the effort to halt and reverse the current poaching crisis. The examples I have described of actions that we and our international partners are taking demonstrate the real international commitment to tackling the illegal wildlife trade.

I will emphasise again, however, that I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s point: we must sustain our action. We must not discuss the issue once a year but see little happening in between. The international community must work together to ensure that the 25 commitments made in the London declaration are translated into urgent, concrete actions on the ground. The UK has played a leading role, and we will continue to work with our international partners to maintain the high level of political attention and deliver outcomes on the ground.

We do not underestimate the challenge. Much work remains to be done, but through the London conference we have achieved a solid base for tackling and ending the appalling illegal wildlife trade.

Badger Cull

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by picking up on a point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick): this is an incredibly difficult disease to fight, and there are no easy answers in the war against TB. There are several reasons for that. First, it is a very slow-growing, insidious disease, which makes it incredibly difficult to detect. It has been hard to get a reliable means of diagnosis. Secondly, the disease lives within the cell wall of blood cells, and that makes it very difficult to get a vaccine to work. That is why the BCG vaccine, which is the only thing that we have, is only partially effective and provides no cure. That is why the Government have been very clear that we need to pursue a range of options to roll back the disease. We are clear that no one measure on its own will work; instead, we need to pursue a range of strategies to bear down on the disease. We set those out clearly in our draft TB eradication strategy, the final version of which will be published shortly. It sets out a range of options; I want to come back to that, because this is an area in which I think there will be consensus across the House.

There is one area where, clearly, we take a different view from the Opposition. Our view is that nowhere in the world has managed successfully to tackle TB without also dealing with the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. A couple of hon. Members have attempted to cast doubt on that—they have mentioned possums in New Zealand and asked whether the case is the same—but in Ireland and France, cull strategies have been successfully pursued.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I will not give way. I want to carry on and make this point, because there were lots of issues raised. If Members do not accept that international comparisons are relevant, I say: look at the historical comparisons. We got on top of TB in the 1960s and ’70s by pursuing a badger cull strategy. Early attempts through measures such as the clean ring strategy pursued by Dunnet in the late ’80s had some success. The RBCTs that the previous Government ran also showed a 16% reduction in the disease.

I want to say a little about vaccination, because we recognise that it can provide some benefits. It can pass on some immunity to cubs, and can cause less disturbance to the badger population, but there are difficulties with it. The badgers have to be successfully trapped and vaccinated; St Ives—the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has talked to me about this—has managed to catch only seven in the past year. We should recognise that no vaccine is 100% effective; the evidence is that it is roughly 60% effective.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

No, I will not; I will keep going.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You know very well, as I do, that if a Member shouts one way, they should not vote the other way, but they could abstain.

[George Eustice]

I want to say a little about what we have done to progress an oral vaccine. We are spending £1.6 million a year—

[Andrew George]

The Minister referred to the trials that were about to commence in the Penwith area with the support of DEFRA, which is providing the vaccine ampoules, which is much appreciated. He said it was only seven. It was only a small trial of the methodology, not of the numbers.

[George Eustice]

I expect my hon. Friend will do better next year.

As I said, we are spending £1.6 million a year developing an oral vaccine. We have made some progress on the dose required for that vaccine, and it is around 10 times more than would be needed for an injectable vaccine. We have also made some progress towards identifying a bait that would be successful, and we have made some progress towards linking the vaccine to fats that can help get it through the digestive system. But there are drawbacks even to an oral vaccine. Not all badgers will take it, and some badgers may eat more of it than others, so it will never be 100%. But we accept that nothing in this challenge is 100% and that is why we are pursuing it.

On injectable vaccines, I have had representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) to look again at whether we could refocus some of our vaccination efforts, either in the edge area, as the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) suggested, or around the east Sussex area. I have said that we will look closely at that. As several hon. Members have pointed out, we are doing some work in that area now, and we would be willing to develop that further.

On cattle vaccines, the Secretary of State met the commissioner on this just last week. We are continuing to do some work to develop a DIVA test. Field trials will take three to five years, so as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it will be eight or nine years before we can get export clearance for the use of such a cattle vaccine. However, we are committed to taking this forward.

I agree with hon. Members that improving the control of cattle movements is an important tool in the fight against TB, but I simply point out that we have done a lot already. We now have annual testing in the high-risk area, and four-yearly testing across the whole country. We have banned practices such as approved quarantine units. We now have radial testing in the low-risk areas where we get an outbreak. We have stopped cattle going to major shows since July 2012. We have introduced risk-based trading to help farmers manage the risks. We have an ongoing consultation about restricting movements and introducing pre-movement and post-movement tests to common land. We are introducing deductions for farmers who are late in having their TB test, and we have reduced the pre-movement testing window from 60 to 30 days. So we are doing a huge amount, but I accept that we should be constantly looking to improve and do more, and we are looking, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) suggested, at whether more could be done, for instance, on biosecurity measures.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to run out of time and I want to leave time for the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main).

On effectiveness, we have already published the numbers of badgers that were culled in both Somerset, where it was 940, and Gloucester, where it was 921. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) invited me to speculate on what the effect on the population might have been from the recent flooding. One lesson that we have learnt is that it is difficult precisely to estimate badger populations. The RBCT did not use head trapping of the sophistication that we did, rather it used things like sett surveys, and there is a huge amount of doubt about whether it had a clear understanding of the badger population.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) have highlighted that the RBCT concluded that the aim should be to remove 70% of the badger population. We accept that and that is why we had that as a target. However, it is wrong to say that if that target is not hit in the first year, the disease will be made worse. The RBCT clearly showed that three of the 10 test areas where there was a proactive cull got between 30% and 40% in year one, but provided that was sustained in subsequent years, it went on to have a significant impact in reducing the disease.

Finally, on the humaneness issue, I know that this is a sentimental matter for many people. In fact, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) highlighted the poem “The Badger”. All I will say is that I hope that hon. Members can develop some perspective, because shooting is used as a means of controlling foxes and all sorts of other wildlife. If hon. Members were to go to Bushy park or Richmond park in September and October, they would find signs up saying that a cull of deer was going on and so the park was closed. No one would bat an eyelid. I hope that we can develop some perspective—

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I am not going to give way, but I know what the hon. Lady is going to say.

We recognise that there are challenges with shooting badgers. That is why we issued best practice guidance that specified a range of less than 70 metres using a rifle, that they should target the chest, the type of rifle that could be used and that the animal must be stationary and over a bait point. It might be that lessons can be learnt from that to improve the proficiency of marksmen and we can obviously consider that.

I want to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) about monitoring. He said that it was insufficient and we do not accept that. We were required to monitor 60 of the culls but monitored 88 and we were required to carry out 120 post-mortems but carried out 150. We did more monitoring than was required.

As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, this is a devastating disease having a devastating impact on cattle farmers. When I visited one of the Gloucester culls I met a Gloucestershire farmer who had been under restriction for 12 years. He was not moving cattle on or off; it was being caused not by cattle but by a large badger sett on his farm that was infected by TB. I saw another farmer who had lost an entire pedigree herd as a result of the disease. We know that if we do nothing it will cost us £1 billion over the next 10 years and, as I said at the start, although we are pursuing a range of options, no single measure on its own is the solution to the problem. There is no example anywhere in the world of a country that has successfully tackled TB without also tackling the reservoir of disease in the wildlife population.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a matter for me, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, but I am sure that his point will have been heard. [Interruption.] If the Minister wishes to respond, I am happy for him to do so.

[George Eustice]

I will respond, Mr Deputy Speaker, because obviously the shadow Minister has an issue with the fact that we have received the report. We have indeed received it, and we are considering it. It was not our decision when the report was delivered to us; an independent expert panel decided that. It was not our decision to have this debate, nor did we get involved in the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to have the debate today, and nor is it the role of Labour Members to dictate when the Government should publish the report. Let me be very clear: we have always been clear that we will publish the report and then, when we have made a decision—we have not made any decisions yet—[Interruption.] No, I am not going to confirm that there will be a vote. I have discussed and debated this many times, and I am sure we will have many opportunities to do so again in the future.

[Miss McIntosh]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had a very well-mannered, even-handed and good-tempered debate, and I regret that we have had what the record may prove to be a vote on very erroneous grounds indeed. I would like to refer to this point of order when we have the record of the vote.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Written Statements

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

I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture Council on 17 February. Scottish Minister, Richard Lochhead, and Welsh Minister, Alun Davies, were also present.

Promotion of EU agricultural products

The Commission presented the main aspects of the new proposal: a focus on third country markets; ending national co-financing to ensure a level playing field; simplifying the scheme by removing the member state pre-selection process; and expanding the scope of the scheme to cover more products.

I was broadly in favour of the Commission’s proposal, noting that the scope should include national quality schemes. However, I stressed that for the budget increase to be justified, schemes would need to bring additional revenue into the EU. Many member states called for promotion to be allowed on the internal market; for national co-financing to be maintained; and for member states to continue pre-selecting projects to transmit to the Commission.

School fruit and milk scheme

The Commission presented its proposal to merge the existing EU school fruit and school milk schemes mainly on efficiency grounds. I and other member states noted that the proposal to transfer provisions on the fixing of aid rates for these schemes from the Council to the European Parliament would not be consistent with the Lisbon treaty. The dossier will now be discussed in detail at working groups.

Dairy sector

The Council discussed a presidency questionnaire on the future of the EU dairy sector following the expiry of milk quotas in 2015. In discussion, two groups emerged: those member states in favour of a “soft landing”—effectively an early end to quota, or a large reduction in quota penalty—and those who wanted market intervention tools which went beyond the recent CAP reform deal and the dairy package.

I spoke in favour of a stable market, noting the long-established position that quotas would end in 2015. To change the system at this late stage would damage the credibility of the EU to see through long-term policy decisions and give certainty to businesses.

The Commission recommended that the issues be taken to the special committee on agriculture, discussed with stakeholders and the European Parliament, and returned to Council ahead of the Commission’s planned report on the dairy sector in June 2014.

Any other business: CAP reform delegated Acts

In response to an AOB request from 27 member states, the Commission defended the latest CAP draft delegated Acts, arguing that they had taken on board member states comments wherever possible, but were constrained by the terms of the basic Act. I called for a more proportionate system of greening and cross-compliance sanctions, while welcoming the Commission’s commitment to secure a workable minimum activity requirement. Over half of member states intervened with a range of outstanding concerns but there was a widespread view that sanctions should be lower.

The Commission repeated its defence of progress and urged member states not to delay agreement of the Acts which should be adopted before the end of the current European Parliament.

African swine fever

There was widespread support from member states for Lithuanian measures to stop the spread of African swine fever. Poland also confirmed that an infected wild boar had been found 1 km from its border with Belarus. Member states urged the Commission to continue to do all it could to lift the Russian trade ban on EU pork products.

Severe weather: Slovenia

Slovenia outlined the impact of a severe snow storm on its agriculture and forestry sector in late January and confirmed that they were planning a call on the EU’s solidarity fund.

The last three AOB items were concluded quickly and without discussion. They were information from the Commission on the implementation of the innovation partnership for agricultural productivity, information from the Netherlands on the outcome of the third global conference on agriculture, food security and climate change, and a report from Lithuania on the conclusions of the 34th conference of EU paying agencies. On the latter item, the Commission underlined the increasing importance of the work of paying agency directors.