Fly-Grazing of Horses

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate. I, like many other hon. Members, have received lots of e-mails from constituents imploring me to attend the debate. I have been able to reply to them and say, “I’ll see what I can do.” It is a delight to be here to respond on behalf of the Government.

We have heard a little today about the scale of the problem. Although there are no official figures, the charities concerned have estimated that almost 7,000 horses are at risk. The welfare charities, in their report “Left on the Verge”, which has been cited by numerous hon. Members, have also identified a growing trend in welfare cases involving equines. Incidents of fly-grazing appear to be on the rise. Clearly, that is wrong and both a burden and a source of concern for the landowners affected.

I want to pick up on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made about the stress that the practice can cause landowners. He makes an incredibly important point. We are talking about people who care deeply about animals and livestock, and it can be very distressing for them to find abandoned on their land horses that have not been cared for—that have been neglected, maltreated or underfed. They may have been left in fields where there is ragwort, for instance, which could affect their health. Sometimes the field is not sufficiently secure to keep the horse within it. I was very struck also by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) about the school that had to spend money to put up fences to keep horses off its land as a result of this problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome also talked about the cost borne by the landowners in these cases, and it is true that that is a feature. I point out that sections 4 and 7 of the Animals Act 1971 give powers for landowners to recover that cost, but I completely accept that, as with all these things, the difficulty is in the landowners being able to bring a case to get the money back.

Let me say a little more about what laws are currently in place, or we have in the pipeline, that could be used to tackle some of the issues described today. It is important to note that quite a lot of powers are already available. First, section 7 of the Animals Act 1971, which applies in England and Wales, allows horses to be taken into the landowner’s possession, provided that certain conditions are met. After 14 days, the horses may be sold. The landowner may also claim any reasonable costs from the owner of the horses for the upkeep of the horses or any damage that they do until they are either returned to the owner or sold at market.

Secondly, as a number of hon. Members have highlighted, the Highways Act 1980 can also be used and is often used by local authorities. That Act makes it an offence for horses to stray or lie on or at the side of a highway. The police have powers to remove the horses, and reasonable costs can be recovered from the owners in doing so.

Thirdly, as we have heard today, horses that are simply abandoned or neglected are often in a poor state of welfare. I was particularly struck by the appalling anecdote told by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) about horses that were literally dying on a tether in some instances and by the case cited by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) involving someone who had dozens or hundreds of horses that were being neglected.

It is important to recognise, though, that in such circumstances it is possible to use section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to fail to provide for the welfare needs of an animal. The DEFRA statutory code of practice for the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids provides clear advice on how to meet the requirements of the Act. Although failure to abide by the code is not in itself an offence, it can be used in a court of law as evidence of neglect, and frequently is.

[Mr McFadden]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I know that he has limited time. He cites all this legislation. We know that it exists, but it is not working. Does he believe that it is? If it is, why do we have this problem?

[George Eustice]

I will address that point in a moment. I just want to make this point about new powers in the pipeline. Clearly, the act of leaving a horse or horses on another person’s land is an example of antisocial behaviour. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill is currently before Parliament and, when enacted, will provide enforcers with new and much more flexible powers to tackle antisocial behaviour in all its forms, including the act of leaving a horse on someone else’s land. Indeed, there have already been some instances in which the existing antisocial behaviour orders—ASBOs—have been served on perpetrators of fly-grazing.

The new antisocial behaviour measures will make it even easier for enforcers to use such powers to tackle these problems. For example, if a person is identified as having left their horse on someone else’s land without permission, the local authority or police could issue a community protection notice requiring the individual to do anything reasonable to address the antisocial behaviour.

In the case of fly-grazed horses, the notice might require the individual to remove or even to sell the horses. Failure to abide by a community protection notice is a criminal offence, and anyone who does so may face a fine or other sanctions. The provisions give the authorities power to impose a forfeiture order on any item, including an animal, used to breach a community protection notice; in this case, that would be a horse.

Several hon. Members have alluded to the frustration of those who complain to the authorities about such problems but no action appears to be taken. If a complainant is dissatisfied with a local authority, either because it has not responded to their concern or because they consider that it has not dealt with the concern effectively, it may be possible to use the new community trigger. Under the community trigger, the police, local authorities and other organisations can be required to review their response if a resident or group of residents have complained about the same problem three or more times and are not satisfied with the response.

In applying all those antisocial behaviour measures, it is necessary to know who the culprits are. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can tackle the problem without identifying and tackling irresponsible owners. If authorities can pool their intelligence and information, it should be possible to identify the leading perpetrators of fly-grazing and take appropriate action. If the problem is acute in certain areas—looking at the charts, Wales appears to be particularly badly affected—it should be a priority for the authorities to do whatever is necessary to deal with it. The tools are there, and we need to ensure that they are enforced.

One of the problems in dealing with fly-grazing is identifying the owners. As we know, identification of the owners of the horses involved is one of the key issues in enabling the authorities and those with whom they work to tackle fly-grazing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I will press on, otherwise I will not cover all the points.

Revised horse passport regulations have been in force since 2009. They require all owners to obtain a passport for each horse that they own and all newly identified horses to be fitted with a microchip. We and other member states are currently considering EU Commission proposals to improve and strengthen the horse passport regime in response to the horsemeat fraud incident earlier this year.

Several measures are under consideration, including stricter standards for passports and a requirement for all member states to operate a central equine database, to which several hon. Members have alluded. DEFRA officials are working closely with the equine sector council strategy steering committee on the matter. As we have heard today, however, horses associated with antisocial behaviour are frequently not identified, so although we welcome the strengthening of the horse passport regulations, we recognise that it is not a solution in itself.

I wanted to touch briefly on another point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the tripartite agreement between France, Ireland and the UK. The Government are committed to protecting our equine industry from the threat of disease from overseas. European statute requires that horses that move between EU member states must undergo a veterinary inspection 48 hours prior to movement, and that they must be accompanied by a passport and health certificate. Any movement must be pre-notified to the competent authorities.

However, the existing tripartite agreement applies a derogation from those rules for horses moving between the UK, France and Ireland, on the basis that the three countries share the same health status for equines, and it seems reasonable that that should continue. We have, therefore, managed to avoid imposing unnecessary costs and burdens on horse owners.

Following considerable work with the equine sector and the member states concerned, I can confirm that a new tripartite agreement has been signed, which limits the derogation from EU health controls for intra-EU trade to groups of horses with a demonstrably higher health status. That will come into effect in May 2014. Those new changes will apply only to movements between the UK and France, and Ireland and France. The situation regarding movements between Ireland and the UK remains unchanged, because we are satisfied that on disease control grounds—bearing in mind the aims of the relevant EU directive—there is no additional risk. The new agreement between the UK, France and Ireland will hugely benefit the sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) highlighted the importance of co-ordination. We have been particularly struck by the protocols introduced by councils in Wakefield and York, which give guidance to local practitioners about the steps they should take to deal with the problem of fly-grazing, citing all the laws at their disposal. I emphasise to local authorities that they can use existing and future antisocial behaviour legislation to tackle that problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and others have asked whether it would be possible to provide further guidance, and we are looking at that. In the case of tackling dangerous dogs, for instance, we issued specific guidance to councils so that they understood the implications of the new measures. We are keen to learn from Wakefield and York councils about whether further work can be done in the area.

On the Welsh proposals, there are a couple of limitations. My biggest concern with what is proposed in Wales is that it introduces no new powers beyond those in the Animal Act 1971, but it shortens the time scales. There is a danger of our putting the onus on local authorities to deal with the problem, rather than on tackling irresponsible owners. We could end up imposing costs and additional burdens on local authorities—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I thank all those who took part in that important debate and ask those not staying for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly.

CAP Budget

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for securing the debate, which is important to all parts of the UK, but particularly her constituents in Scotland, because as she says, she has a very rural constituency.

As hon. Members are aware, the Government have recently announced the allocation of €27.6 billion in funding from the common agricultural policy between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for the period 2014 to 2020. The vast majority of those funds will come to the UK as direct payments under pillar one of the CAP. In total, between 2014 and 2020, the UK will receive €25.1 billion in the form of direct payments and €2.6 billion in funding for our rural development programmes under pillar two. Although these are significant sums, the UK will receive less CAP funding in the next seven-year EU budget than it did from the current EU budget. The fact that the UK will receive less funding from the CAP in the future is in line with the reduction in the EU budget that the Prime Minister secured at the February European Council. That position was overwhelmingly supported earlier this year by the House of Commons and will be to the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Minister says that there is a reduction in overall funding, but he does not address the fact that the convergence uplift was specifically due to the difference between Scotland and other parts of the EU. The money was given in the budget for a specific purpose. Should it not be used for that purpose?

[George Eustice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am one minute and 50 seconds into my speech and I have another 12 or so minutes in which I might get to those issues.

Across the EU, most member states will see reductions in their CAP budget and receipts, and it is only appropriate that the UK shoulders its share of the cut. It is worth noting that we have done better than many other member states. With a shrinking pot of money, how we allocate the funds between Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland was always going to be a difficult decision for the Government. In reaching that decision however, the Government consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations. We have had to be fair to all parts of the UK; I shall explain why I think we have been. Through a collaborative process, the Government decided on the most appropriate way to allocate the funds. There was an equal and proportionate reduction in funding to each Administration. That is fair.

[Mr Reid]

The Minister says that the Government’s approach was an equal percentage reduction throughout the UK. The point was made in the debate that the uplift came to the UK due to Scotland, so surely the money should have gone to Scotland?

[George Eustice]

I was going to move on to the uplift, which is the main topic of the debate. I have heard the views of hon. Members who say that the additional funds should have been made available to Scotland, but quite simply the UK’s direct payments will fall over the next seven years and there are no additional funds to allocate. Compared with 2013, the UK will receive around €500 million less in direct payments over 2014 to 2020. It is important to note that the convergence uplift does not mean that there is an additional pot of money to allocate. It simply slows the rate at which we have to make reductions for everyone across the UK. To give more funding to Scotland—or any one region, for that matter—would have required deeper cuts to the other parts of the UK.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I want to make progress; I will get to the point that I think the hon. Gentleman will address in a moment.

The point has also been made that Scotland has the lowest per-hectare payment in the UK and that, by virtue of that, Scotland should have received additional funding. There are a number of points to make about that argument. First, the so-called convergence uplift was calculated based on a UK average payment. Secondly, the lower per-hectare payment in Scotland is due to Scotland’s extensive moorland, which has yielded lower levels of production and, therefore, has historically attracted lower subsidy payments than other parts of the UK. Thirdly, it is important to note that Scotland still makes payments based on historic subsidies received by farm holdings in 2001, which means that those areas of land that had been most actively farmed, and generally still are most actively farmed, receive more money than the unfarmed moorlands.

Scotland’s low per-hectare payment also needs to be viewed alongside the fact that Scotland has the highest average per-farm payment in the UK, at about £26,000, compared with just £17,000 in England, £16,000 in Wales and £7,000 in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that she has no respect for that argument, but it is legitimate. Scotland has bigger farms, and the land there has historically been less intensively farmed. I think that the public will realise that if Scottish farmers are getting payments of almost £26,000 a year, they are getting far higher payments than the UK average, which is currently only about £16,000.

[Dr Whiteford]

It all depends how one cuts the figures. In fact, the majority of Scottish farmers—50% of them—receive CAP payments of less than £10,000. Obviously farming is more extensive in upland areas of Scotland, which can skew the figures, but it is important to understand the median average payment, rather than the mean average payment. Either way, it is irrelevant to the convergence uplift.

[George Eustice]

I do not think it is irrelevant. As I said, the reason why Scotland has historically had a lower allocation is that there is much more moorland, which is not farmed as intensively. One can make the argument that there are differences within that and that some small farmers get less than £10,000, but that is also the case in Northern Ireland, England and Wales. The principles are set, but Scotland’s average farm payment is among the highest in the EU. In fact, only in the Czech Republic, where there are still huge collective farms, is the average payment received per farm higher than in Scotland.

Finally, it is important to note that there have always been wide variances in the per-hectare rate paid, both between member states and within member states. Countries such as Latvia and Estonia receive less per hectare than Scotland. I should also point out that the Government’s approach in allocating the cut equally across the UK’s Administrations is consistent with the approach that we adopted earlier this year when allocating the UK’s structural funds. Of those, Scotland received €795 million, which represented an increase of €228 million compared with the amount it would have received if the EU’s formula had been used, so Scotland received an uplift of sorts when it came to the allocation of structural funds, because the UK was willing to depart from the EU formula and adopt the approach that we have taken historically. We must accept that if we are to be consistent and take the historical approach, Scotland might lose in some areas, but it might also win in others. It has undoubtedly won from our adoption of the historical approach to structural funds.

In announcing the allocation of CAP across the UK, the Government have also committed to undertake a review of the allocation of CAP funding in 2016, at the same time that the European Commission will be undertaking a review of the 2014 to 2020 EU budget. The president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, Nigel Miller, has made a strong case for us to do the review early, and I am keen to meet him to discuss some of his concerns.

Let me say to hon. Members who have raised points that I speak regularly—almost weekly—with the devolved Assembly. One thing about the farming and fishing ministerial brief is that we deal extensively with all our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. The next time I visit Scotland or other devolved Administrations, I am more than happy to discuss the issue with politicians there. I am a great believer that we in the UK are stronger working together. DEFRA has a good track record of engaging closely with our partners in the devolved Administrations.

[Mr Reid]

I am pleased that the review will take place in 2016, but my understanding is that the Government have given no commitment to implement its outcome quickly. Will the Minister leave open the option to implement the review’s outcome in 2017, rather than waiting until 2020?

[George Eustice]

A number of other things must happen at about the same time as the review, not least, particularly in Scotland’s case, moving from the current approach, which is based on historical payments in reference to 2001, to an area-based approach. Scotland will have to think about that carefully in order to get it right. One would not necessarily want a single, flat rate for all land areas; there will be a difference between lowland rates and moorland or upland rates.

It will be a big exercise for Scotland to get the rates right for different types of landscape. Only after we have seen how the transition from historical payments to land area-based payments will work can we make decisions about it. There may also be legal issues about whether things can be changed before the next financial perspective, post 2020.

I know that Nigel Miller, the president of the NFUS, has made a strong case and wants us to consider the issue. The Secretary of State has already discussed it with him, and I am keen to discuss it with the NFUS when I go to Scotland, to ensure that we engage fully with the Scottish farming industry on this important issue. The review, concluding in 2017, will be an opportunity for us to consider domestic CAP allocations and reflect on wider developments across the EU and UK as a result of CAP implementation. We might also be able to see how the different approaches taken by various devolved Assemblies are working in practice.

Throughout the CAP negotiations, which have only just concluded, the UK fought hard to ensure that Scotland and the other home nations could deliver the CAP in a manner that suited their needs and those of their farming industries. The UK has used its size and influence to deliver a series of wins for Scotland and Scottish farmers, including securing greater regionalisation of the CAP, ensuring that the national reserve is flexible enough to provide continuing support to new farmers, clarifying that farmed heather is a form of permanent grassland and extending to 2016 the designation of areas of natural constraint, which are particularly numerous in Scotland. Finally, although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was sceptical about the value of this, we have also secured for Scotland the ability to increase the use of coupled payments—I know that there is a strong view in the Scottish industry that that is particularly important for beef production.

Now that we have negotiated all those outcomes for Scotland, it is up to the Scottish Government to decide how they want to proceed in implementing the CAP. The UK Government have ensured that Scotland and other devolved Administrations have the ability to implement the CAP as they see fit. I know that consultations are under way in all the constituent parts of the UK. The agreement that we secured includes significant flexibility for Scotland to direct funding to those parts of the rural economy and environment that it deems appropriate. With the budget settlement recently announced by the Government on the CAP across the UK, all the devolved Administrations now have the certainty they need to start making those important decisions.

[Mr Weir]

The Minister has not addressed the point I raised earlier. He said that there was less money in the budget from Europe, which may be true, but the UK Government argued for a lower budget. The budget coming to the UK has been increased by the convergence uplift specifically because of the Scottish situation. That money was given because Scotland had a particular problem, and it is not coming to Scotland. Surely that is not right.

[George Eustice]

I think I did address that point. I made it clear that the calculation for the convergence uplift was UK-wide, not Scottish, that there are historical reasons why Scotland has had less and that Scottish farmers receive more on average per farm unit than farmers anywhere else in the UK. I do not accept that I did not address that point. We are taking a consistent approach by sticking with the historical approach, as we did on structural funds. We have achieved a lot for Scotland and other devolved parts of the UK, in terms of giving them flexibility to implement the CAP as they see fit.

[Mr McKenzie]

Perhaps I can take the question asked by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) in another direction. Does the Minister understand Scottish farmers’ frustration and anger that moneys specifically targeted at Scotland have not arrived in Scotland but have been distributed elsewhere?

[George Eustice]

As a UK Minister, I must be fair to all parts of the UK, and I think we have been fair and consistent in how we have applied this, for all the reasons I have set out. As somebody who worked in the farming industry for 10 years and who comes from a far corner of the UK, I am a firm believer that, as a UK Government, we can achieve more for all parts of the UK by staying together. It would be regrettable, for instance, if Scotland did not have the muscle that it gets from being part of the UK in European negotiations. If Scotland left the UK, it would be in danger either of being outside the EU altogether or of having negligible voting weight and being one of the smallest countries in the EU, which would not be in Scotland’s interests.

Marine Conservation Zones

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

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

Today I am pleased to announce the designation of 27 marine conservation zones (MCZs) in the waters off the English coast. A 28th MCZ at Hythe bay in Kent, will be further investigated by the Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and Natural England before I make a final decision on this site early in the new year.

These new MCZs will protect nationally important habitats and species around the English coast and help improve our marine environment. The designations are the culmination of a great deal of hard work by a wide range of stakeholders in co-operation with Government and their agencies. This has been a huge undertaking and I would like to thank all who have contributed.

I am also pleased to announce that the process for designating further MCZs will now start in earnest with the aim of designating a second tranche in 2015-16 and a third in 2016-17. We anticipate that these tranches will combine with other marine protected areas to complete our contribution to an ecologically coherent network including the waters around our islands. To support this process we have been working with the devolved Administrations in the UK, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and national conservation agencies to take stock of the habitats and species protected in existing and planned marine protected areas so that we can identify areas to be protected by future designations.

We will continue to make full use of the work of the earlier regional MCZ projects including considering whether some of the sites recommended by those projects are more suitable to be assessed as potential inter-tidal sites of special scientific interest. A review of reference areas as recommended by Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is planned to start in early 2014.

The new MCZs will complement the protection given to the existing 113 English sites of special scientific interest with marine components, 44 English marine special areas of conservation (SACs) established under the EU habitats directive and 44 English marine special protection areas (SPAs) established under the EU wild birds directives. These marine protected areas taken together cover over 30,000 sq km in English inshore and offshore waters, an area broadly the size of Belgium. Since 2010 the area of inshore marine sites around England has increased substantially and with the MCZs designated today, just under 25% of English inshore waters are now within marine protected areas.

All of our marine SACs have now been adopted by the European Commission as sites of community interest which means that they will formally become part of the EU’s Natura 2000 network. Work is continuing to identify the remaining marine SPAs. We will shortly be consulting on two further SPAs for the protection of seabirds at Flamborough and Filey coast and at Falmouth bay to St Austell bay.

Successful management of marine protected areas requires stakeholders to work in partnership and co-operate with each other, with conservation advisers and with regulators. I want to see well managed sites which conserve and protect our important habitats and features and I strongly urge all those with an interest to work together, in partnership, to achieve this. Successful management of these areas also requires a good evidence base to inform the measures that need to be taken to protect their habitats and species. In the last three years DEFRA has spent over £8 million gathering evidence to support designation and management. I am pleased to announce that we have allocated a further £2 million this year and will continue to support this work going forward.

Building our network of marine protected areas is one strand of our ambitious programme to protect and enhance the marine environment while supporting sustainable use of its resources. We are working to implement the reforms we secured to the common fisheries policy to manage fish stocks more sustainably and eliminate the waste of discarding dead fish into the sea. We are pressing ahead with measures to protect cetaceans, sharks, skates and rays. We are also for the first time establishing marine plans around our coast to help achieve efficient management of competing uses of our seas while safeguarding the environment. These initiatives will all contribute to achieving good environmental status in our seas by 2020 as required under the EU marine strategy framework directive and move us towards achieving our vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas that everyone can enjoy for years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

3. When the ban on fishing discards will come into force.

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

The UK secured a landing obligation as part of the agreement on reform of the common fisheries policy this summer. The final agreement includes a phased timetable, with a landing obligation in pelagic fisheries coming into force in January 2015 and a landing obligation in other fisheries beginning in 2016. Preparatory work has begun and we are talking to the fishing industry and other stakeholders about how we can best implement those changes in practice.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Recent research has shown that a ban on discarding alone will not lead to sustainable management of the nation’s fish stocks. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will introduce a range of measures alongside the discard ban, and that full regard will be given to the interests of the inshore fleet, such as those who fish out of Lowestoft in my constituency?

[George Eustice]

I confirm that there will be a range of other measures. We have never claimed that a discard ban alone would work, and there are three parts to the reform. The discard ban was one part, and we also introduced regional decision making for the first time. Finally—and most importantly—there is now a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably. Taken together, those measures represent a radical reform of the common fisheries policy, and that is a tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who led the charge on those reforms.

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

The reforms are welcome and what the Minister said is correct, but the regulation on discards will require not just UK Administrations to comply, but other EU member states to do so as well. Will the Government ensure that the European Commission takes measures to ensure that, as far as possible, all member states comply with the regulations on discards?

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree. We need other member states to comply with the regulations, and we will raise the matter with the European Commission if we have concerns that they are not doing so. I stress, however, that there is a legally binding commitment for member states to fish sustainably. Regionalisation will mean that for the first time, groups of member states with a shared interest in a shared fishery will come together and come up with better decision making.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. With a ban on discards, the roll-out of marine protected areas, a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably, the introduction of marine planning, and a whole range of other measures to ensure that our seas are sustainable, is this not a good time for those who are concerned about the health and sustainability of our seas?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is right and I am delighted to continue the good work that he started in those areas. That shows the commitment of this Government to protecting and enhancing our marine environment.

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

15. Instead of establishing a marine conservation zone across Hythe bay, will the Minister consider other conservation measures that could be carried out in harmony with the work of the inshore fishing fleet in the bay?

[George Eustice]

We have today made clear our intention to designate 27 sites as marine conservation zones. I confirm that Hythe bay is not currently one of those, although we are doing further work on that and holding further discussions with stakeholders. We hope to make a decision on Hythe bay in the new year. One interesting area we are considering is whether we might reach an agreement with stakeholders by looking at zoning that site, rather than having it as an entire block.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to reduce levels of food waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

6. When the research commissioned by his Department into the provision of food aid in the UK will be published.

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

DEFRA has commissioned research to review publicly available evidence on the landscape of food aid provision and access in the UK. All Government-funded research projects are required to go through the necessary review and quality assurance processes prior to publication. Once this process is complete, the conclusions of the work will be made available on the Government’s website.

[Julie Hilling]

With more than 350,000 people using food banks since April alone and a more than 800% increase in the past three years, is the Minister delaying publishing the report because he is embarrassed to admit that the dramatic rise is due to the cost of living crisis caused by this Government?

[George Eustice]

No. As I just made clear—if the hon. Lady had listened—all Government reports must go through a review and quality assurance process, as set out in the Government’s social research service code introduced in 2008. There are many complex reasons for the increase in the number of food banks, but it is worth noting that there was a tenfold increase in their number under the last Government.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is not the innuendo of the question from the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and similar questions that the Labour party wants welfare spending increased? If it wants that, should it not spell out by how much it wants it to rise and who should benefit and in what ways?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister to respond, but on food aid in the UK, rather than on Labour party policy.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all know that the best way to tackle poverty is to help people back into work.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

8. What effect partnership funding has had on the number of flood protection schemes initiated in the last 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

11. What increase there has been in pork exports to China in the last year.

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

Our work in opening up the Chinese market to British pork saw an increase of pork exports to China from £5 million for the first nine months of last year to £14 million for the same period this year. That trade has helped to lift China into our top ten biggest international food markets for the first time.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I congratulate the Minister on that great success. British pork is the best pork in the world, and much of it is produced in Staffordshire. The potential for growth and jobs in British agriculture from exporting to China is huge. With just a little more support, in terms of marketing, promotion and trade shows, more jobs could be created. What plans does he have to help British farmers to sell in China?

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that British pork is the best. My family breed British lop pigs, which I would argue is the best breed. To answer his question, earlier this month the Secretary of State took a delegation of British food and drink companies to champion British food at Food and Hotel China, the largest food fair in Asia. Food and drink is also a key pillar of the “Great” campaign to raise the profile of the food and drink industry internationally, and a “Great”-themed reception was held in China during the Secretary of State’s visit.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is not just pork to China; it is beef to Russia as well—

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Perhaps I can help hon. Members out by saying that the combined estimated worth of pork, beef and lamb to China and Russia is £230 million over three years. In September this year, the Secretary of State visited Russia to help open these markets.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

12. What progress he has made on reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

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

A common agricultural policy reform deal has been agreed between the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. Overall, the CAP package does not represent a significant reform, but we did improve the Commission’s original proposals, increased flexibility and fended off attempts by others to introduce a number of regressive measures. Our formal consultation on CAP implementation in England was launched earlier this month and will run until 28 November.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for that reply. In order for British farmers to remain competitive in world markets, it is important that the CAP helps them to meet the reasonable constraints that stop them simply turning the British countryside into ranch and prairie. Is the Minister content that, as drafted, the CAP will deliver public goods without simply giving money to large farmers who do not need it?

[George Eustice]

One area we are looking at in our consultation is how to develop an agri-environment scheme in pillar two. We are keen to build on the fantastic track record we have in these areas. It has always been the Government’s position that we can do more for the environment by spending through pillar two rather than through pillar one. That is why we have aimed to keep as simple as possible the greening measures in the conditions for the single farm payment.

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

Earlier this week, I met leaders of the Scottish National Farmers Union who had come all the way to London to express their deep concern that the CAP convergence uplift, which the UK received only because of the historically low area payments in Scotland, is to be split four ways. Does the Minister accept the principle of convergence and, if so, will he look again at how to bring the review process forward before 2016?

[George Eustice]

As the UK Government, we have had to take an approach that is fair to all parts of the UK. The reality is that farms in Scotland tend to be larger and the per hectare rate has been lower historically because the land is less productive, but the average farmer in Scotland receives about £25,000 a year, the average farmer in England receives approximately £17,000 and the average farmer in Northern Ireland receives less than £8,000. On that basis, Scottish farmers are getting more than farmers elsewhere in the UK.

Topical Questions

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Proposals were made for 127 marine conservation zones, which it was agreed were necessary to create an ecologically coherent network. It is therefore very disappointing that the Government are going ahead with only 27 zones, and if press reports are correct they will not be consulting on the second tranche until 2015. Why is there such a delay?

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

We have made it clear that there will be two further tranches. I can confirm that next year, we will begin the research work necessary to start identifying some of the next sites. We will launch the formal consultation for the next tranche at the beginning of 2015, but that does not mean we will not be doing work in the meantime.

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

Fishermen in my constituency are periodically economically reliant on dredging around the Eddystone reef. Will my hon. Friend consider issuing permits that would expire after retirement or sale of vessel to allow them to continue to earn a living?

[George Eustice]

One of the principles of the marine conservation zones is that we want to development management measures locally with the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, the Marine Management Organisation and harbour authorities. We want them to be constructive and, given how technology is developing, it is possible still to fish sustainably, in a way that protects many of the features we are trying to protect through these designations.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Asthma UK has condemned the Government’s proposals to reduce air quality monitoring across the UK. Will the Minister drop these damaging proposals?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, because no vCJD prions have been found to be present in sheep. The European Food Safety Authority looked at this issue in 2010 and concluded that the spinal cord from sheep aged over 12 months should still be removed as a precautionary measure. However, we are investigating alternative methods of spinal cord removal that do not require splitting the carcase, and continuing to raise with the Commission the case for reviewing the current controls.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

If the amount of air quality monitoring taking place is being reduced, how will we know that air quality is improving? How does this work?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am pleased that the marine conservation designation for the Stour and Orwell site has not been approved. I thank the Minister for that, and can he assure me that it will not be reconsidered in future rounds?

[George Eustice]

Throughout all the assessments we have made of these designations, we have taken account of socio-economic factors, and in the case of Stour and Orwell that was one of the effects we looked at. We recognise the importance of those ports to the economy, both locally and nationally, and that is why we decided not to designate in that instance.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Owen. I also thank the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) for securing the debate, which has indeed gathered a bit of interest. The hon. Lady and I had a dry run of this discussion in the media this morning. I can understand her concerns about some elements of the proposed changes, but I feel that there is a degree of role reversal—as a Conservative who is sceptical about having the EU telling us what to do, I am all up for loosening regulations and letting markets decide, so to hear a Lib Dem taking such a strident position on the issue was surprising.

I come from a family involved in fruit farming. The jam industry is itself important, but having it as an outlet, a market, for the fruit industry is also important. One of the things that I learned, to my cost, while trying to grow strawberries is that a lot of things can go wrong in the fruit industry, whether bad weather, bruising of fruit or pallets of fruit tipping over, so having the jam industry market for some of the damaged fruit is very important. I ought to let the House know that my family’s business, Trevaskis Farm, makes jam for sale in small quantities through the farm shop. I have a little knowledge of the area through that.

To provide the context, the proposed changes to the regulations are part of DEFRA’s contribution to the Government’s red tape challenge initiative. The regulations were one of a number that were identified under the food and hospitality theme that could benefit from improvement and where potential savings could be delivered to businesses. The jam regulations were identified as an area in which we could consider changes that might provide businesses with greater flexibility and less restrictive rules.

One impetus behind the change was a request by some in the industry for the UK to consider taking up an optional derogation in the EU jam directive that permits—but, crucially, does not require—a sugar level lower than 60% to be set, which is something that a number of other member states have already done. The derogation allows member states to set a lower minimum sugar level for jam and similar products.

Organisations such as the Food Processors Association, an organisation that incorporates the United Kingdom Sweet Spreads Association and represents many in the jam industry, were keen for the Government to amend the regulations to ensure that the UK was on a more level footing with other major EU jam manufacturing countries, such as France and Germany.

[Tessa Munt]

The clue is in the title, the Sweet Spreads Association, and that is not jam. The Minister should come cooking with me—I do not know what else I can do, but suggest a master class in jam cookery in DEFRA. Let us have a go. Frankly, if people want to call something a fruit or sweet spread, they may, but they should not be calling that stuff jam.

[George Eustice]

All right. Since that original request, which was for a minimum permitted sugar level of 55%, others have requested that we consider lowering the minimum permitted level even further, to 50%, which would remove the so-called no man’s land that currently exists between sweet spread products, which are supposed to be below 50%, and jam products, which are supposed to be 60% or above.

After considering all the responses, we decided to reduce the minimum permitted sugar level for jam from 60% to 50%, but to retain the national provisions for fruit curds and mincemeat—an issue that the hon. Lady raised later in her speech. That will all be subject to the necessary clearances. The reduction in the minimum permitted sugar level to 50%, however, delivers the greatest flexibility to the industry as a whole, in a way that will not be detrimental to those who are in compliance with the existing regulations and can continue to make their jam as they do now.

The hon. Lady has expressed concerns about the possible impact on British jam, but I believe in the market—the market will dictate what does and does not sell. I mentioned earlier that my own family’s farm business produces small quantities of jam for sale through the farm shop. I took the liberty of talking last night to my mother, who is in charge of making the jams. She said that there has been a trend among consumers over the past 10 to 15 years to seek out products with lower sugar levels. They want products with more fruit and less sugar. We should not resist that, if there is a market demand for such products. They do not have to be the gunge or dreadful products that the hon. Lady mentioned —I assure her that the products sold in our farm shop are very good.

[Tessa Munt]

I have been contacted by diabetics and others who require products with a reduced sugar level and that is fine, but they are always accurately labelled on supermarket shelves and in farm shops as reduced-sugar jam. People know what they are buying. But if everything with a minimum sugar level of 50% and above can be called jam, there will be utter confusion about what is really jam and what is a fruit spread or whatever.

[George Eustice]

I understand that. The sugar content of a fruit spread is supposed to be below 50%, so we are removing that no man’s land between 50% and 60% and allowing products with a sugar content of below 60% but above 50% to be labelled as jam.

My hon. Friend pointed out that the 60:40 sugar-to-fruit ratio was recommended following research at the Long Ashton research station in Bristol in the 1920s. That was a long time ago and since then there have been technical advances and recipe experimentation. In the last few years, our market has included fruit spreads and jam with a sugar level of less than 60% with no increased spoilage reported. The reduction of the minimum requirement to 50% removes the current gap for products that fall into the 50% to 59% category. The flexibility delivered by the change will help to ensure that British jam manufacturers remain competitive because they will have the option to market their jam products with a higher fruit content on a level playing field with other member states.

It is worth reiterating that we are talking about a minimum permitted sugar level. That does not mean that existing manufacturers must work to the new minimum.

[Mr Ellwood]

I congratulate the Minister on his position. I do not know whether the Prime Minister had the foresight to appoint him knowing that this question about jam was coming his way. He seems perfectly placed to take the matter forward. If the producers of “Celebrity Masterchef” or the “Great British Bake Off” are watching, there may be some invitations coming through to pursue it further.

The Minister said that manufacturers, wherever they are based, in Dorset as well as other places around Britain, may continue to do what they are doing now. Will he confirm that no one in the industry will be affected by the prospect of a change in the regulations and that they may continue to do what they are doing now?

[George Eustice]

That is the case because these are minimum not maximum requirements. If there were a maximum requirement requiring all jams to have 50% sugar we would be having a totally different discussion. We are discussing minimum requirements and giving the industry flexibility. Those who want to develop products with a lower sugar level that they can market in Europe will be able to do so, and traditional jam manufacturers who want to retain a 60% level, are resistant to any change and do not accept that there have been changes in techniques or recipes may continue as at present and market their products as traditional jam with a premium in the market.

[Tessa Munt]

If the minimum level is set at 50%, all the organisations that are making jam with less than 60% sugar will be entitled under the regulations to call their products “jam”, not “reduced-sugar jam” or whatever else they are attempting to make. We need that clarity for the British public’s attachment to jam and what it means. I have bought stuff from supermarket shelves that is like mud—it has lost its colour, it is not the right texture and it is a completely different product. All those products will be entitled to be called jam.

[George Eustice]

I do not think it is in any company’s interest to market products that, to use my hon. Friend’s words, taste like mud. We must let the market decide. Makers of brands who passionately believe that a quality product must have 60% sugar will carry on with that. Nothing in the change will affect that. If my hon. Friend is right and brands with a lower sugar content will have an inferior product and if customers conclude that, as she suggested, they taste like mud, they will not buy it again. The market for that product will be small. In a free market economy, we should have a light-touch approach to regulation, and that has come out of the Government’s red-tape challenge. The market must decide. If my hon. Friend is right, the market for such products will be small.

Our changes will provide jam businesses with increased flexibility. We are keen to help small businesses that are trying to break into the market, and some exciting new products are coming on to the market based on the unique British Bramley apple. Jams made from it set more easily because of its high pectin content and do not need quite as much sugar. My hon. Friend said that the market for such products is small, but an internet search showed quite a number of products using Bramley apples as part of a mixed jam, such as Bramley and blackcurrant and Bramley and blackberry. There are exciting prospects for them, and there is nothing more British than the Bramley apply. We are almost unique in Europe in having specialist culinary apples rather than just generic apples. This is a good potential market for our excellent Bramley apples.

The regulations will be improved in respect of reduced-sugar jams. Since 2006, when new regulations on nutrition and health claims were introduced, there has been an overlap with the 2003 regulations that specify that a reduced-sugar jam must have a sugar content of between 25% and 50%. In contrast, the nutrition and health claims rules require all products labelled “reduced sugar” to have at least a 30% energy reduction compared with a standard product. To sort out this discrepancy, we are doing away with the specific rules for reduced-sugar jams so that they will need to comply only with the same rules as all other foods. That will provide improved clarity for the industry and consumers, and respondents to our consultation agreed it would be much simpler to work with one set of rules in this area.

We consulted on the proposed changes earlier in 2013 and received some useful contributions. One option that provoked strong opinions was in response to whether the UK’s national provisions for fruit curds and mincemeat—the sort in mince pies—were still useful or whether they could be removed. I can reassure my hon. Friend, who highlighted many concerns, that although she may not agree with our proposals to reduce the minimum sugar content of jam, we have acted on the evidence put to the Department and we will not change the regulations on fruit curds or mincemeat.

The main justifications cited were that curd and mincemeat standards help to maintain the production of these uniquely British products whose origins are firmly established and go back centuries. They are not part of other member states’ culinary culture and UK producers manufacture them to traditional recipes. The current rules reflect those practices.

The standards provide an important yardstick and their removal could result in a reduction in quality and could stimulate the introduction of products that are materially different from our current traditional curds and mincemeat products. So, as a direct result of the cogent arguments put forward in the consultation process, including a response from my hon. Friend’s constituent, Mrs Lloyd, we will retain unchanged the national provisions for fruit curds and mincemeat. That decision is positive and demonstrates the benefit of consultation to help to ensure that the final policy decision is fit for purpose.

[Mr Ellwood]

At the heart of the matter is a description of what is on the shelf so that people can recognise the sugar content and whether it is really British jam or from elsewhere with a different content. Will the Minister consider a jam kitemark or indication so that people can recognise true jam as defined at present and the different spreads that we may see more of from the continent?

[George Eustice]

As I said, I am a great believer in the market. Individual jam manufacturers who pride themselves on their brand and who passionately believe that jam must have 60% sugar to be good will be able to market their product as a niche, specialist product. If there is no market for products with less than 60% sugar, it will not develop. It is for the industry voluntarily to come together if they want to and jointly market traditional jams. I welcome this important debate, which has provided exactly the detailed scrutiny that the House should undertake.

Natural Capital (England and Wales)

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) for bringing this motion to the House. He has consistently championed the cause of the environment, and he made a number of incredibly important points in his speech. Like many others, I acknowledge the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). It is important to recognise that a lot of the work we are doing now stemmed from the natural environment White Paper. After having been elected, one of the first things I did early in this Parliament was to attend the launch of that document at Kew. I remember it well. It was a very important piece of work, and she is to be commended for it.

To prove that there can be some cross-party consensus on this issue, I acknowledge the work that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has done through his chairmanship of the all-party group on biodiversity and his consistent interest in its potential. However, I must take a little issue with his strong criticism of the Secretary of State. I can vouch for the fact that my right hon. Friend believes passionately in these issues, of which he is a real champion. He regularly speaks to Dieter Helm, the chairman of the natural capital committee. I therefore do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s criticism on that front, but perhaps we can come back to that later.

As every Member who has spoken has said, the state of natural capital is a crucial issue and the scale of the problem is great. Recent studies, such as the national ecosystem assessment and the “State of Nature” report prepared by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others, drew on the excellent work of experts and volunteers across the country. They have reinforced the Government’s view about the worrying trends in the state of our natural assets.

We are constantly learning more about the complex mutual dependencies that underpin our vital ecosystems, but we are also finding evidence that shows that these intricate systems are, indeed, under threat. As many Members have said, 30% of the UK’s ecosystems are in decline. The numbers of specialist farmland birds, for example, have plummeted.

Although the overall condition of the natural environment is a cause for concern, we should also acknowledge that there have been some significant success stories that demonstrate what can be achieved when there is a will to do so. For example, environmental legislation has helped to transform many of our watercourses, and rivers that were once notoriously polluted now sustain a variety of wildlife. Of course, although these successes are heartening, important aspects of our natural environment are still in decline. The status quo is therefore not acceptable and a concerted effort on the part of Government and society is necessary to turn things around.

As part of their efforts to halt and reverse degradation of our natural environment, this Government have pledged to improve their understanding and measurement of England’s natural capital. It is, therefore, extremely encouraging to hear that the Government’s commitment to advancing the natural capital agenda is shared by Members from across the political spectrum.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), have said that a Treasury Minister should be present instead of me. All I can say is that I am passionate about this issue and I am here to represent the Government. It is usually only one Minister who responds to this type of debate. Members have said that they would have preferred a Treasury Minister to be present and I will not take that personally, but I am afraid that tonight you’ve got me. It is important to note that the Treasury is heavily involved in this issue. The response to the NCC’s first report was co-signed by the Secretary of State and the then Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid).

A number of Members have asked what we are doing to get the principles into the green book. I have three points to make in response to that important question. First, following the publication of the natural environment White Paper in June 2011, the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published in 2012 supplementary green book guidance on accounting, so consideration has already been given to including environmental impacts in cost-benefit analyses by Government Departments.

Secondly, I reassure Members that the NCC is currently in discussions with the Treasury and DEFRA about developing the green book so that we can take further steps. Thirdly, DEFRA has commissioned a baseline evaluation study to review how well recent impact assessments across government take into account environmental impacts. We are, therefore, taking a number of steps.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I wonder whether the Minister took note of my point about the Government response—the letter. He has just laid out how the Government are responding in a serious way, but will he undertake that when the next state of natural capital report is published in nearly a year, it will receive as full a response as that which we would expect for a Select Committee report?

[George Eustice]

I hope my hon. Friend will find that the remainder of my speech will pick up on a lot of the themes of the 13 recommendations made by the NCC report.

[Mr Stuart]

I recognise that my hon. Friend is new to his post and that he is in a difficult position, but it really would be helpful if he could commit on the record to provide a full response to next year’s report. This debate was called not by the Government, but by the Backbench Business Committee, and we cannot rely on a debate such as this to ensure that the Government are held to account on something so important.

[George Eustice]

I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. Lord de Mauley leads on this element of the Department’s portfolio and I speak on it in the House of Commons. I will discuss the point that my hon. Friend has made with him.

It is not surprising that there is a consensus that natural capital matters. It underpins fundamental aspects of all our lives. We rely on natural capital for the air that we breathe, the food that we eat and the water that we drink. It is also a crucial source of energy and well-being. It will play a central role in mitigating the potential impacts of climate change. It may even provide the key to scientific and technological innovations. It is the foundation on which our economy is built. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) gave a fabulous quotation from John Aspinall:

“Nature is the bank upon which all cheques are drawn.”

That is very true.

Despite its importance, we have taken natural capital for granted. For too long, the value of our natural capital has been disregarded and, as a consequence, degraded. In the past 50 years, in spite of growing environmental awareness, many of the pressures on the natural environment have accelerated. Short-term, short-sighted economic gains have been prioritised. Too often, that has come at the expense of the natural environment. It is clear that if the habit of eroding our natural capital assets is allowed to continue, it will ultimately, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, be at the expense of future generations and their economic well-being. If economic growth is not sustainable, frankly, it will not be sustained. If we do not actively attempt to understand the true value of natural capital, we will continue to set its value, wrongly, at zero.

Many people in the UK already place a value on nature. Members may well have heard enough about the BBC for one day, but the growth in popularity of programmes such as the BBC’s “Countryfile” demonstrates that we are a nation that cares passionately about the natural environment. The widespread appreciation of nature’s intrinsic value, the importance of which many Members have highlighted, is demonstrated by the large memberships of groups such as the RSPB and the wildlife trusts. To those who say that unless we put a monetary value on something, it is not valued, I say that that is not the way that the public see it. They see a great intrinsic value in our natural environment.

Valuing our natural assets in terms of their worth to the economy in pounds and pence is a challenging exercise. We will have to involve the dedicated efforts of world experts to come up with the right calculations. However, it is important that we do not see valuing nature as just a dry, academic exercise that is performed by accountants. The natural capital agenda must, and will, have a practical application that will lead to real outcomes in our natural environment. If we want to protect nature, we need to make better decisions about how we use it. Those decisions will be better informed when we have properly measured and valued our natural capital.

That is why the Government set up the natural capital committee in 2012. In doing so, we were acting as a global leader. We now lead the way by having an independent group of experts that reports on where our natural assets are being used unsustainably. Ultimately, the committee will advise the Government on how we can prioritise action to address the most pressing risks to our natural capital. That advice will better enable the Government to fulfil their vision, first set out in the natural environment White Paper of 2011, of being

“the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than it inherited.”

With that vision in mind, I read with interest the committee’s first state of natural capital report, which was published in April this year. It set out a framework for how the committee would deliver its ambitious work programme. The report highlighted just how high the stakes are for the environment and the economy in work that the committee is doing. The committee argued powerfully that the environment and the economy are not rival priorities that have to be traded off against each other, but that environmental and economic interests can and must be aligned. The report set out how that beneficial alignment can be realised.

Although we have enough data to be confident that our natural assets, for the main part, are being degraded, we do not measure directly changes in their extent or quality on a widespread basis and we do not account for them in national or business accounts. It is therefore not currently possible to identify systematically which natural capital assets are being used unsustainably, but the work of the committee aims to get a better handle on that.

The committee’s first report not only set out the need for a framework to measure and value our natural assets, but contained a number of recommendations to help get that framework in place. When the report was published, the committee promised to follow up in its second and third reports—due in early 2014 and 2015 respectively—with more specific advice about where assets are at risk of not being used sustainably, and what needs to be done about it.

The Government support the analysis set out in the NCC’s first state of natural capital report, as detailed in the joint letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness referred to from the Environment Secretary and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The letter stated:

“We welcome the report’s conclusions and we look forward to working with the Committee as they and others advance this agenda.”

I can report that good progress has been made on the recommendations contained in the report, by both the Government and the NCC. For example, in order to determine whether we are on a sustainable path, the NCC has commenced two pieces of work to help understand which assets are in decline—and to what extent—as well as which are most at risk. The NCC will report on its initial findings in its next report. We are interested to see how that might inform other Government policies, such as biodiversity offsetting, which a number of hon. Members—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden—have mentioned.

On national and corporate accounting, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent North, good progress is being made. On national natural capital accounting, the NCC is working closely with the ONS and DEFRA to implement the road map to 2020 that the ONS published in December 2012, setting out its timetable for producing natural capital accounts. On the corporate side, the NCC is engaging with a series of major businesses and landowners. It is about to undertake a series of pilot projects with a selection of those businesses in order to trial natural capital accounting in a real-world context and see whether it is an effective tool for encouraging businesses to operate on a more sustainable basis.

Let me touch on some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness raised at the end of his contribution. He asked for a response to each of the 13 recommendations, and as I have said, I will take his comments back to my noble Friend Lord de Mauley. A lot of those recommendations are being taken forward by the NCC, and many others are addressed in the good “Accounting for the value of nature in the UK” report by the ONS.

A number of Members asked whether we believe that the framework should be developed, and the Government agree that it should be. That is a task for the NCC, which is working further on that. Importantly, the committee is not doing just a single one-off report that is then placed in the Government’s hands; it is continuing to work on many of these elements. Many hon. Members raised the importance of developing a risk register, and I confirm that the second report from the committee will look further at a risk register and at highlighting those areas where we use our natural environment in an unsustainable way. The next report will contain the first steps in that direction.

In conclusion, we are very much looking forward to the NCC’s second report, due to be published in spring 2014, and to the more specific recommendations we expect it to contain. We are particularly interested in what it might have to say about a proposal for a long-term strategic plan to ensure the preservation and recovery of natural capital in this country.

[Mr Speaker]

For a brief wind-up of the debate, I call Mr Graham Stuart.

Badger Vaccines

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I welcome this debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) called for. The number of people here today suggests that we could do with more than half an hour to debate some of the issues. I welcome the tone with which my hon. Friend approached the debate. He is right that some people take different views about whether we should pursue a cull strategy, but we all agree that there is a role for vaccination of both cattle and badgers.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to consider the matter in detail in my recent role as a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government’s response to its report was published earlier today and shows that we share a significant amount of common ground on the issue.

Bovine TB is the biggest threat to the livestock industry in England—I was going to say Cornwall, where it is also a threat, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) knows. Having lived and worked in the farming industry in Cornwall, I know how difficult the problem is. My family run a herd of pedigree south Devon cattle and in the late 1960s, before my time, they had an incident of TB that wiped out more than half the herd and had a devastating impact on the family farm. My father still talks about it.

By the 1980s, we had almost eradicated the disease, but in the last 10 years there has been a severe deterioration. It has cost the country more than £5 million so far to fight the disease. Last year, we had to slaughter some 28,000 animals. Bovine control is not under control. In Lancashire, the county of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, we have seen an increase in the number of herds under restriction and the number of cattle slaughtered in the last year.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The Minister says that bovine TB is spreading more, and that is exactly why people are saying that culling is not the answer. Scientists involved in a randomised badger culling trial between 1998 and 2005 have shown that culling has not contributed meaningfully to a reduction in the disease and, if anything, has increased it because as the animals are shot, they run away and carry the disease with them.

[George Eustice]

It is generally accepted that, after the initial conclusions of the randomised badger culling trials, there was a significant reduction of some 16% in the cull area in the following years. On perturbation, which other hon. Members have also raised, there was an increase in TB in a ring immediately around the trial areas as a result of perturbation, but the incidence then dropped. Overall, there was a reduction. I point the hon. Lady to evidence in other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland, which has had a cull policy since 2000 with a reduction of around 45% in the incidence of the disease, and the number of cattle having to be slaughtered has halved.

There is no magic bullet and no single policy that can change the situation dramatically. Vaccination of badgers and cattle has a role; wildlife control has a role; dealing with the reservoir of TB in wildlife has a role; and routine testing, movement controls and better biosecurity all have a role. But none of them alone is the entire solution.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Part of the trial is taking place in my constituency. My first ministerial meeting when I was elected 16 years ago was with Jeff Rooker on this very subject, and only now is any meaningful action taking place. The Minister is absolutely right to say that a whole range of measures is needed to counter the disease, but it has been increasing and farmers have been suffering. We must get a grip on it.

[George Eustice]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have painted a picture of how bleak the matter is. The disease is spreading and we cannot ignore it any more; we must take action.

Returning to vaccination, which is the subject of the debate, I think it is worth noting that successive Governments have invested more than £43 million on vaccine research and development since 1994. The coalition Government will have spent at least a further £15 million. I say “at least” because the figure excludes what is likely to be sizeable expenditure on the necessary work on cattle vaccine field trials.

[Tracey Crouch]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the response to a recent freedom of information request on 22 September shows a significant reduction in the amount of departmental investment in the oral vaccine particularly, but also in all other research into injectable vaccine and cattle vaccines? Spending on the oral vaccine will fall from around £2.5 million to £312,000 in 2015. Should that not be dealt with “drekly”, as the Cornish might say?

[George Eustice]

It seems that the word “drekly” is catching on in the House. I will deal with oral vaccination later. Right now, only the injectable BCG is available to tackle bovine TB and it does not fully guarantee protection. Some animals will be fully protected, some will benefit from a reduction in the disease, but some will get no protection. That is a shortcoming of a vaccination policy, but it would be a useful addition to the toolkit and we will use it to tackle the disease when we can perfect it.

[Angela Smith]

I welcome the Minister to his new role. He has mentioned the words “toolkit” and “all the tools in the box” more than once. Will he rule out one tool that most hon. Members believe is unacceptable—the gassing of badgers in any future cull?

[George Eustice]

We have made it clear that we would never use gassing as a means of controlling the badger population if we thought it was inhumane, but it is in the consultation for research. That does not mean that we will use it, but we will consider further research in this area.

The research is not on animals. It involves laboratory situations and simulated setts to work out how to get gas to go through a sett. The concern is not the gas itself, but the ability to deploy it throughout a sett. I assure the hon. Lady that that is the sort of research that was alluded to in the strategy. There is nothing new about it; it was in our published strategy in July.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I want to make some progress or I will not get to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that vaccinating badgers with BCG can reduce the risk of infection and transmission of the disease. A four-year safety field study of wild badgers showed a statistically significant indirect protective effect in unvaccinated cubs born into vaccinated social groups, but vaccinating a large enough proportion of badgers to reduce transmission of disease and bring about a reduction of TB in cattle would take time to achieve and be costly to deliver, at between £2,000 and £4,000 per sq km per year.

In practice, it is inevitable that not all badgers in an area will be trapped and vaccinated. There is no evidence that vaccination protects already-infected badgers, and there is a risk that badgers from neighbouring unvaccinated areas may act as a constant source of infection. Nevertheless, computer modelling indicates that sustained badger vaccination campaigns could be beneficial in lowering TB incidence in cattle, but quantifying that contribution is likely to need a large-scale field trial, and it would take some years to collect the results.

[David Morris]

I would like to put it on the record that should what I am proposing come together, I would like my constituency to be its first trial area.

[George Eustice]

That has been noted, and we will take it on board—[Interruption.] I do not want all hon. Members asking for their constituencies to be a trial area. Vaccination is a potential additional tool to reduce geographical spread of the disease, particularly on the edge of areas. My hon. Friend’s constituency is in not an edge area, but a low-risk area.

Vaccination could complement badger culling by providing a buffer to limit the impact of perturbation. It may also form part of an exit strategy from culling—for example, by vaccinating remaining badgers with the aim of establishing herd immunity in previously culled areas.

[Albert Owen]

I welcome the Minister to his place on the Front Bench. Will he assure the Chamber that his Department is working with the Welsh Government so that we can have some data on their trials, share information and eradicate the problem in the whole United Kingdom? His responsibility covers only England, but such co-operation would help both England and Wales.

[George Eustice]

We are keen to learn lessons from around the country and around the world, so we are looking at the work going on in Wales. I have to say that it is not that encouraging at the moment; a vaccination-only strategy is not seen to be working particularly well, but we will study the results closely. I am also interested in following what is going on in Northern Ireland, where they are trapping and then vaccinating badgers that they believe are not infected and culling those that are. We are also keen to learn lessons from countries such as Australia, which has pursued policies similar to ours.

[Ian Paisley]

I welcome the Minister to his new role. With regards to the vaccine for cattle and cows, which he touched on at the beginning—the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale also asked about this issue—will the Minister take the opportunity to make it abundantly clear that if a vaccine is given to a cow, it makes the cow test positive? That makes it indistinguishable from an affected beast when it is tested, which leads to one conclusion: the cow is slaughtered. We have to get away from pursuing the idea that there is some sort of magic bullet, or magic pill, that can be used to vaccinate a cow and not lead to its being slaughtered.

[George Eustice]

I do not want to get drawn too far into cattle vaccination, but the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to perfect the so-called DIVA test that differentiates between the two. It is clear that it will take some time. The European Commission has put a time frame of 10 years on getting to that stage. I would like that to be quicker, but we have to be realistic—there is a lot to be done.

I come back to supporting badger vaccination. DEFRA operates a badger vaccination fund; in the current year, that has prioritised support for vaccination in the “edge area”. The fund offers start-up grants of 50% to fund the first year of vaccinations. Having said that, it is true to say that applications this year have been a bit disappointing. We are now looking to understand precisely why that is, so that we can get it right next year. Coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, we are keen to work with all those groups, including voluntary groups, who would like to participate, and to work out how we can get them engaged in that.

I also intend to discuss a plan that the hon. Member for St Ives has on the issue—I have promised to meet him and Rosie Woodroffe. The Department has made a modest commitment to support some vaccination in that regard and he has some ideas; we are keen to pursue that option and look at it.

[Andrew George]

I put on the record my gratitude to DEFRA for the initial funding of the pilot, which is proceeding this week. The intention is to cover the whole 200 square miles of the Land’s End peninsula, and we are increasingly gathering the co-operation of farmers in the area.

[George Eustice]

I know that, and I look forward to discussing the matter further when I meet the hon. Gentleman. The training scheme has become more popular since, as part of the DEFRA-funded badger vaccination fund, we have offered grants of 50% to voluntary and community sector volunteers to train as lay vaccinators. That is another area that we would like to look at.

Finally, I want to say a few words about our work on developing an oral badger vaccine. A badger vaccine could be administered orally through baits. It would be more practical and potentially cheaper, which is why DEFRA continues to fund that. It is not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, that we have cut expenditure on that. We are, as I say, still spending about £4 million a year in total on developing cattle and badger vaccines.

There are things that we would need to resolve when it comes to the development of an oral vaccine. We would need to work on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine formulation and make sure that we can deploy the bait to attract the maximum number of badgers. One of the problems is that badgers will not take the bait that is used, so it is important to have the right bait.

Another problem can be that one badger might eat all the bait and another badger might not get any, so there are challenges. We also have to deal with the potential impact and safety for other wildlife. There is still further work to do, but we are committed to taking it forward, and we are clear that that ongoing work will play a role in our strategy.

Sentencing Tariffs (Offences Against Animals)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders)—he is a fellow west country MP—on securing the debate and raising an issue that attracts a great deal of interest. He has always championed it, and I join him in praising the RSPCA for how it pursues some of the horrific cases that he outlined in his introduction.

I was personally interested in this area before I joined the Government. I served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and earlier this summer, as part of my research, I read an interesting report called “Unleashed”, which was written by an academic called Simon Harding. It looked at the phenomena of status and weapon dogs and tried to understand why we are seeing an increase in some types of dog fights.

There are three key types of dog fight. First, there are those awful dog fights where bets are placed. They often take place in private venues, and that is the type of thing that my hon. Friend mentioned. Secondly, there is what they call “back of van” fights or trunking, which are awful. The idea came from the US, where they lock dogs in the boot of a car to fight it out. The third type, which some of the evidence suggests has had the greatest increase, is chain rolling, where dogs are used as an alternative to a knife and there are impromptu fights in parks. There has been a significant increase in reports to the RSPCA of illegal fights of that sort.

A further problem has been the growth of the internet, which has made some of these crimes easier to commit. That point has been highlighted by a great many of the animal welfare charities. We have the awful problem of the different terms and code words used in internet advertising for dogs designed to be sold for fighting, such as red-nosed, game-proven, game-bred and blocky. I welcome what the Pet Advertising Advisory Group has done to try to tighten that up by creating a new code of conduct for those companies that advertise pets.

The Government deplore acts of animal cruelty and believe that offenders deserve the full force of the courts. Our responsibility is to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose. My hon. Friend asked whether we would review the legislation. We reviewed the main legislation that protects the welfare of kept animals—the Animal Welfare Act 2006—in 2010.

The report prepared by my Department and sent to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its consideration concluded that there was broad agreement that the 2006 Act has genuinely had a positive impact on animal welfare. It successfully brought together a number of different pieces of legislation into a comprehensive whole and placed a duty of care on those who are responsible for animals. The 2006 Act also introduced a preventive measure that has allowed action to be taken without animals suffering unnecessarily. Although the consultation highlighted some concerns that more could be done to speed up court cases involving seized animals, it did not cast doubt on the adequacy of maximum sentences.

Of course, legislation must set maximum penalties. It is then for the courts—usually the magistrates court for animal welfare cases—to take a view on what sentence should be given. Judges and magistrates have a great deal of discretion in sentencing. In coming to a view, they are helped by specific sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council, which has been responsible since 2010 for providing detailed guidance to courts on the appropriate sentence for individual cases.

Sentencing guidelines help to achieve consistency in deciding the type and length of sentence and set out the factors that should be considered in those decisions. The guidelines set out how a judge or magistrate can decide on the seriousness of a particular offence, and then determine the appropriate sentence. Of course, the circumstances of different cases can vary quite widely and that can explain the different sentences handed out. The guidance to magistrates covers cases of animal cruelty for offences committed under the 2006 Act and helps magistrates to impose an appropriate penalty. Those guidelines were last updated in 2008 and reflect the current penalties available.

The Government’s responsibility is to ensure that the courts have the flexibility to impose the appropriate sentence within acceptable ranges. To that end, the 2006 Act makes it an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal. That offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine of £20,000 or, crucially, both. Someone found guilty of organising or participating in a dog fight, along the lines that my hon. Friend described, could receive both a fine of £20,000 and a prison sentence of six months. Six months is the highest sentence available to a magistrates court and the fine is much greater than the usual £5,000 limit.

In addition, the 2006 Act makes it an offence to fail to provide an animal with its welfare needs. That offence can attract a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine of £5,000, or both. The offender can also be disqualified from owning an animal in future.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

As I was coming to work yesterday morning, there was a Staffordshire bull terrier-type dog dead in the Thames. I hear what the Minister says, and I commend the Government’s action on increasing fines and sentences, but what action has specifically been taken to stop the people involved from owning those dogs again, legally or illegally, and what action has been taken to stop these dog fights taking place?

[George Eustice]

There are a number of measures under which we can do that. Under the 2006 Act, which was introduced by the previous Government, people can be disqualified from owning dogs. Through that Act, Parliament tightened up the earlier legislation. The courts now have to state why they would not impose such a disqualification, rather than it being left entirely up to them.

[Chris Evans]

My concern is on the safeguards to ensure that someone who is banned cannot own a dog again by legal means. What evidence do we have that someone owns a dog, even if they are banned? How do we impose that ban? That is the issue that I was raising.

[George Eustice]

Clearly, it is for the courts and the police to enforce the bans. Other bits of legislation related to dog welfare and, in particular, breeding, contain anti-avoidance clauses, so that if someone has five litters of dogs being bred on a premises—regardless of who owns or claims to own those dogs—they are caught by the law and require a licence. There are elements of legislation that do that, and I am here to set out what the law states. I commend what the previous Government did in introducing the 2006 Act. As I said, it requires the courts to state why they would not impose such a disqualification.

I realise that some people would like to see the maximum limits raised, but we need to be clear why such a move is deemed desirable by those calling for such an increase. Is it because the maximum limits are considered to be low compared with other similar offences? If we make that point, however, we should compare them with the maximum penalties for other crimes, such as assaulting a police officer, which can attract six months of imprisonment, a fine of £5,000 or both. The maximum penalty available for acts of antisocial behaviour, under the new Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, will be three months, a fine or both.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Animal Welfare Act provision to increase sentences to 51 weeks. I think that he was referring to a scheme called “custody plus”, but it is not quite true that that would relate to a custodial sentence of 51 weeks; in fact, the sentence was always intended to be a combination of community service and imprisonment. It was not simply an increase—a mixture was always intended.

Alternatively, is an increase intended to act as a deterrent? The Government, however, have received no indication from magistrates that the penalties for animal cruelty cases should be increased because they are having to impose more and more penalties towards the upper end of the range. Crucially, for no convictions has a judge handed out the maximum sentence of six months. We therefore have to ask, why increase the maximum, if the existing one is not being used by the courts?

To give an example of the penalties handed down by magistrates over the past three years, convictions under the Animal Welfare Act have been roughly 1,000 a year; typically, about 10% of those have been sentenced to imprisonment, with the remainder getting a fine. That does not indicate to me that magistrates consider that the maximum penalties for animal cruelty should be increased. I understand the points made by hon. Members about increasing maximum sentences, but there does not seem to be evidence to suggest that a review is necessary, especially given that the issue was reviewed most recently in 2008.

My hon. Friend has, however, brought up an important subject for debate, which we all recognise as a growing problem, and the Government have introduced additional bits of legislation to deal with dangerous dogs, such as community protection notices or criminal behaviour orders, which allow the courts to ban people from owning or breeding dogs, or to require dogs to be neutered—a whole suite of other policies applies there.

My hon. Friend asks whether I am willing to meet him and the RSPCA, and of course I am, although the area is the responsibility of my noble friend Lord de Mauley, so he might well take that meeting on my behalf or with me. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for an important debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the provision of food aid in the UK.

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

The provision of food aid ranges from small, local provision to regional and national schemes. There are no official figures for the number of food aid organisations or the number of people using them in the UK. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned research to assess publicly available evidence on food aid provision in the UK, and that work will be made available in due course.

[Alex Cunningham]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. In the past year, several new food banks have been opened in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Stockton South by excellent organisations such as A Way Out and the New Life church. Some are supported directly by the Trussell Trust, which states that the number of people relying on food banks has gone up from 41,000 to 350,000 since this Government came to power. What does the Minister think has caused that explosion in demand?

[George Eustice]

There are a number of complicated reasons for those changes and nobody is quite sure. That is one of the reasons we commissioned this report. The use of food banks has been going up for some time, and it also increased dramatically under the previous Government. This is a good example of the big society in action, and we are seeing some good organisations stepping up to help people.

[Luciana Berger]

I welcome the Minister to his new post, but I hope he will have time to refer to the facts and figures of the matter. Under this Government, the use of food banks has rocketed, and I hope he will read carefully the report from Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty that came out in May and shows that, this year alone, half a million people will access emergency food aid. I think that is a national disgrace. Does the Minister agree?

[George Eustice]

As I said, the reasons for the increase are complicated. The hon. Lady asks about the facts and figures, so let us look at them. The accepted way to measure household expenditure on food is by looking at the bottom 20%. We know that in 2008, when the previous Government were in power, the lowest 20%—the most disadvantaged households—spent 16.8% of their income on food. That figure is now 16.6%. If we look at the facts, spending on food as a percentage of household income for the most disadvantaged is no more than it was in 2007.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of food banks in this country should be seen in the light of the tenfold increase in food banks under the previous Government, and will he commend the work of the Coalville food bank in my constituency?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we must recognise that if we want to tackle poverty we must help people get back into work and off benefits. That is one reason why the Government’s welfare reforms are so important.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I welcome two west country colleagues to the Front Bench and wish them every success. Does my hon. Friend recognise that food banks have careful rules about how much food they give to people and how often they give it, to ensure that people do not become dependent on food parcels? Surely giving a helping hand in times of need is a very good thing indeed.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Two food banks in my constituency do very good work, and, as I said earlier, that is an example of the big society in action. We should support that and welcome it.

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

2. When he expects bovine tuberculosis in England to have been eradicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

9. What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.

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

We have a robust package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and improve public safety. New powers will allow local authorities and the police to deal flexibly with local dog issues. There will be new legal protection against dog attacks on private property and stiffer penalties for those who let their dogs kill or injure someone.

[Mr Amess]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. With my rescue pugs, Bo and Lily, about to take part in the Westminster dog of the year show, does my hon. Friend agree that I will be responsible for their behaviour—may God help me—just as all dog owners are responsible for the behaviour of their own dogs?

[George Eustice]

May I wish Bo and Lily the very best of luck in the Westminster dog of the year competition? I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) earlier that his own dog, Cholmeley, will be there offering competition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) makes a very good point. I had a rescue dog—a border collie called Mono, and these dogs make for loving and dedicated companions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that getting responsible dog owners is the way to get good dog behaviour.

[Mr Speaker]

No doubt we will hear about the dog enthusiasms of Mr Andrew Stephenson.

[Andrew Stephenson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the Minister on his new position. Unfortunately, I do not have a dog, so I cannot enter one into the competition.

As for dog attacks, my own mother was attacked in the run-up to local elections by a dog on private property. As the Minister will be aware, around 70% of dog attacks on postal workers occur on private property. What effect does the Minister think the extension of the criminal offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control on private property will have on all those whose jobs depend on visiting people’s homes?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Volunteers in my own constituency, too, have experienced dog attacks. For the first time, this measure will give hard-working people such as postal workers and others who visit homes as part of their job the full protection of the law when they are confronted by an out-of-control dog. This Government support hard-working people—not just in words, but in deed.

[Simon Wright]

The ease with which puppies can be traded on the internet is bringing more and more poorly looked after and sometimes dangerous dogs into the community. Will the Minister update us on what progress has been made to ensure that animal welfare and responsible ownership are promoted when puppies are made available for sale online?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley recently met members of the Pet Advertising Advisory Group and they discussed a voluntary code to improve standards of internet advertising. Officials have looked at the problem of illegal puppies being imported through our ports—an area in respect of which I intend to have further meetings in the weeks ahead.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) will be pleased to know that my rescue German shepherd dog, Diesel, is not taking part in the competition this year. However, on a serious point, one way in which dog owners can act more responsibly is to make sure that they do not buy puppies from industrial puppy farms, which are often sold through pet shops or online and too often result in dog rescue centres bursting at the seams with the numbers of puppies and older dogs in them. Will the Minister agree to meet me and dog rescue charities—Marc Abraham has done a lot of work in this area—to look at how we address the disgraceful issue of industrial puppy farms?

[George Eustice]

I commend the work the hon. Gentleman has done on this issue. I know he hosted a recent meeting on the subject in Parliament, which I attended. I would indeed be happy to meet him about the problem. We all know that part of the problem with out-of-control dogs stems from them not being raised or socialised properly in the first six months of their lives. That is why we need to look at the issue of the responsibility of dog breeders. We should remember that good laws are already in place requiring those breeding puppies for sale to have a licence from the local authority. We need to ensure that that is enforced more widely.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain why he is ignoring all the dog charities and other agencies, including the RSPCA, the Royal College of Nursing and the police, and is not introducing dog control notices in the forthcoming Bill?

[George Eustice]

I have considered the issue carefully, and have concluded that, far from being more limited than the Scottish-style dog control notices, the community protection notices proposed by the Government have more scope and are more flexible. This week we have published guidance for practitioners. I think that there is concern not because the proposals for community protection notices are not good enough, but because there is not yet enough understanding of how they can be used.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

11. Regrettably I have no four-legged friend entered in the House of Commons dog show today—[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] I know, I know. Also regrettably, the number of dangerous dog attacks on guide and assistance dogs—which cost £50,000 to train—is rising. What steps might my hon. Friend take to increase the sentences that are handed down for such attacks?

[George Eustice]

That is a very good point, which has also been raised by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. In the summer, we consulted on proposals to increase the maximum penalties for dog attacks on people and assistance dogs. Such attacks can have a devastating effect on the victims. Attacks on assistance dogs can cause them to lose their confidence and become unable to help their owners. We are currently considering what sentences would be appropriate for such attacks.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has to protect consumers from excessive rises in water bills.

--- Later in debate ---

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

A National Audit Office report today shows the response to the horsemeat scandal was hampered by confusion caused by the coalition Government splitting the Food Standards Agency’s responsibilities in 2010. It also raises concerns over the reductions in food testing, public analysts and local officers working on food law enforcement since this Government came to power. So will Ministers now accept their share of responsibility—or is this the fault of the badgers?

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

The Department will look at this report from the NAO and study its recommendations very carefully, but I have to say there is no evidence that the division of the FSA’s role has contributed to this, and, more importantly, we have appointed Professor Chris Elliott to look at this whole issue in great detail and his report will be key.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

T5. Given the importance of exports to the country’s economic recovery, what is my right hon. Friend doing to help producers and exporters open up foreign markets?

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

T2. My constituents who work at Tate & Lyle have been very appreciative of the Secretary of State’s efforts to secure a level playing field for cane sugar refiners in the European market. His former ministerial team were very diligent on this issue. I welcome his new team and wonder whether he can reassure the House that they will be equally determined on this issue.

[George Eustice]

I can, indeed, give the right hon. Gentleman that reassurance. The EU sugar regime is one of the most distorting parts of the common agricultural policy, and we had great success in negotiating the removal of sugar beet quotas in 2017. However, he rightly says that we need now to take those trade barriers down, and time is of the essence. We are therefore pushing the European Commission to ensure that all opportunities to secure additional trade concessions are taken at the earliest opportunity.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T6. The Secretary of State will recall the petition I sent him that was collected by Climate Friendly Bradford on Avon; more than 1,000 Wiltshire residents were calling for a charge on single-use plastic carrier bags. How will the Minister ensure that neither the Chancellor nor the supermarkets cling on to the cash it collects?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T7. Whether or not the Government see sense next week and accept our amendments on dog control notices, that will not resolve all the issues relating to dangerous dogs, including controlling breeding, and ensuring that puppies are properly socialised and that children and adults are educated about dog ownership. Does the Minister agree that we still need a full dog welfare and control Bill?

[George Eustice]

Actually, I do not agree. There are lots of bits of legislation covering many areas, but the laws are in place. We need to ensure that they are better understood, which is why we have published guidance this week pointing out what community protection notices can do and how they can be used by practitioners.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I know that the issue is important for my hon. Friend and I would be more than happy to meet her and others affected by the decision.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Wildlife Crime

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 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), who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, for securing this debate. It is a shame that it has taken so long to secure it. She explained to me earlier that part of the reason for that was that, with the summer recess coming, it was not easy to get a slot. She also made the point that it took the Government some time to respond to the Committee’s report. I am able to say that that was nothing to do with me, because I was not in the Government at the time. However, what I can say—a number of people have said this already—is that my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), was absolutely passionate about these issues, so I do not think anyone should read into that delay that there was any lack of interest in the issue of wildlife crime on his part.

As we have heard, wildlife crime is a matter that we all care deeply about. Hon Members are quite right to seek reassurance about what the Government are doing to tackle the issue. Efforts to tackle wildlife crime have moved forward hugely in the last 10 years, thanks to the commitment and enthusiasm of successive Governments, the enforcement agencies and the many non-governmental organisations that willingly share their expertise and experience. We should take a moment to reflect on what has already been achieved, and to put on record our appreciation of the contribution that has been made by everyone who has been involved. Their work has helped to make the UK the envy of many countries around the world on this issue.

The range and nature of the evidence submitted to the Committee’s inquiry—we heard from the Chair of the Committee that there were 57 submissions—showed how interested people are in this issue, and there was a range of perspectives. As the Chair of the Committee said, the threat from the international wildlife trade has come into sharper focus this year. I welcome hon. Members’ support for the action that the Government are taking to work with the international community to tackle this issue. The increasing levels of elephant and rhino poaching, and of illegal trade globally, are indeed very worrying. They not only threaten individual species but governance, national security and development goals.

The Chair of the Committee said that the illegal wildlife trade is the fifth biggest criminal activity globally. The figures that I have been given suggest that it is now the third biggest, behind only drugs and people trafficking. It has now been categorised by the UN as a serious organised crime. As many hon. Members have already alluded to, as part of our commitment to tackling this trade we will host a conference in London on 13 February 2014 to galvanise international efforts to tackle wildlife crime and to secure top-level global political commitment on this issue. In the run-up to the conference—

[Caroline Lucas]

Perhaps I will pre-empt what the Minister was about to say, but I wanted to pick up on the point that the Chair of the Committee made earlier about the London conference, which we all welcome. Can the Minister assure us that in addition to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers and officials being there and taking a lead as we would expect they would—we know the Minister’s commitment—will he ensure that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice will play an absolutely key role at the conference too, because unless they are also on board I fear that we will not see the positive outcome that we all want?

[George Eustice]

I was about to go on to say that, although I cannot say exactly which Departments will be represented at the conference, in the run-up to it the Government are collaborating closely with other countries, the royal household, multilateral organisations and major NGOs to agree a way forward and to reach a consensus on the required outputs from the conference.

A number of Members have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke passionately about the problems of the ivory trade; it is clear that there is a very strong feeling about this issue. The Chair of the Committee asked specifically what the Government’s negotiating position on this issue was when it was discussed at the convention on international trade in endangered species conference. I must be honest; being so new to the job, I will have to write to her specifically to set out the precise position that we took. However, looking at the Government’s response to the Committee’s report I know that they obviously touched on some of these issues and made it absolutely clear that we want to maintain the existing ban on raw ivory, although they also highlight that there is a slight difference with some of the antique ivories, which tend to predate 1947; indeed, they are required to predate 1947. There is a slight difference there, but I will write to her to clarify precisely the position that was taken.

[Joan Walley]

I am sure that our Committee would welcome a formal response setting out that position. However, some of the evidence that we received suggested that the Government’s position might not make any difference to the reduction, or growth, of the particular species that we are talking about. So, before he writes that letter, may I ask him to have a second look at the evidence that we received and accordingly base his reply on that evidence?

[George Eustice]

Given the strength of feeling on this issue—there are Members who have already made that point—we will indeed look at that and we will get back, in detail, on it.

I remember that when I was given this job my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park sent me a text message saying that he needed to talk to me about elephants. Now I know what that meant and we are talking about it for the first time here. The Government have been a major contributor to the African Elephant Fund, which funds the African elephant action plan, agreed by all the countries that have African elephants. The first objective of that plan is a reduction in the illegal killing of elephants and illegal trade in their parts or derivatives. There is certainly a commitment on the part of the Government. I welcome and respect the passion that my hon. Friend has brought to that element of the debate.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North talked about problems of raptor persecution. A number of hon. Members mentioned hen harriers in particular and problems relating to those. The persecution of birds of prey is of grave concern. Although many of our birds of prey are doing well, their persecution is not acceptable. We remain committed to addressing the illegal killing of birds of prey. Persecution can take many forms, such as poisoning, shooting and deliberate destruction of nests, and it is totally unacceptable.

Bird of prey persecution remains one of the UK’s wildlife crime priorities and we will continue to work to ensure that we take the right steps to take enforcement action in respect of any offences being committed. DEFRA is working with the police and other stakeholders who are best placed to help facilitate a reduction in bird of prey persecution. The group working on this has been looking at types of offence that occur and, earlier this year, established maps that show where incidents of bird of prey poisoning have taken place. This will help detect to trends and inform decisions on where action might be targeted.

A main focus of our efforts will be the hen harrier, populations of which in England are critically low. No nests appear to have been successful this year. Hon. Members commented on the number of hen harriers. There are some breeding pairs in Scotland. Although full details are not available, there are apparently 12 breeding pairs in England and many more in Scotland and Wales. Persecution is regularly cited as a reason for failure for the hen harrier population to grow, so considering how enforcement tools can be best used to protect it is an important strand of work in assisting its recovery in England. Let me assure hon. Members that there is a robust legal framework for protecting birds of prey in England, with penalties including imprisonment for offenders.

There is almost universal agreement—the Committee’s report contained a strong recommendation for it—on recognition for the important work of the national wildlife crime unit. I recognise and appreciate the huge contribution that the unit makes to wildlife law enforcement, both in the UK and internationally. The unit is small, but its impact is big. It has helped raise awareness of wildlife crime and provided professional expertise and support for wildlife law enforcers across the UK, enhancing their ability to identify and tackle wildlife crime. It has also played an important part in a number of Interpol initiatives targeting particular species groups and has lent its expertise to and assisted in global efforts to conserve those species most at threat from illegal international trade. It clearly has strengths and expertise that would contribute to the UK’s response, which is another reason why we need to reach a decision on the future of the unit as soon as possible.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about the Association of Chief Police Officers head of the NWCU, wanting to know who has taken on the role. I am told that it is currently in the hands and under the leadership of acting Chief Constable Bernard Lawson from Cumbria, who took on the role temporarily from Chief Constable Hyde. A new head of wildlife crime for ACPO will take on the role permanently, once they are appointed.

The Committee recommended that long-term funding for the unit should be secured and the Government have confirmed that funding will be provided until the end of March next year. Many hon. Members agree strongly with the Committee—I have listened carefully to the points made, including by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—about the importance of securing funding for it. I understand the frustration with the fact that it has not been possible to do that so far.

The funding is not as straightforward as it might appear. Hon. Members will be aware that the unit is currently co-funded by DEFRA, the Home Office, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Government, ACPO and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. All these bodies are considering their position on the future of the unit and recognise how important it is that we come to a decision as soon as we can. We will advise the House as soon as a decision has been made.

The shadow Minister mentioned possession of pesticides, particularly in the context of harrier populations. The Committee raised this concern in its report. Specifically, there is concern about possession of carbofuran and other pesticide ingredients and whether we should follow the Scottish example and the approach taken there. The Committee recommended that possession of such chemicals should be an offence. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising this today, as it gives me an opportunity to clear up this matter.

The hon. Gentleman says that it is legal to store these chemicals, but not to use them. However, the advice that I have been given is that approvals for the use of pesticide containing carbofuran were revoked in 2001, which means that the advertisement, sale, supply, storage or use of carbofuran is already a criminal offence under existing UK legislation. Therefore we do not need to change the law. We simply need to recognise that it is already illegal to store it.

[Barry Gardiner]

Of course, this is not only about carbofuran, but about a range of other chemicals that can be used to poison wildlife, not just hen harriers. I agree that it is not necessary to change the law. There is a perfectly sensible provision, under the NERC Act, that would allow a list of chemicals to be drawn up that can be, and are being, used in this way. The Scottish experience shows that by putting chemicals on that list and applying the law, and then successfully enforcing it and prosecuting people, it is possible to target the criminals who are doing this.

[George Eustice]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point—I probed it when looking into this issue—but approval for the majority of pesticides linked to wildlife poisoning cases has been revoked, or they have never been approved for use. Carbofuran tends to be, as it were, the weapon of choice for those who want to poison these birds. It is already illegal under existing pesticides legislation. This legislation, together with the use of amnesty initiatives in place in some areas, already addresses this issue. Therefore there is no need to create a new offence.

[Barry Gardiner]

I appreciate the Minister’s engaging in a dialogue on this point. If prosecutions were taking place under the existing proscription of these chemicals, we would be more confident that the law was effective in stopping their being used for poisoning wildlife. Given that that is not so, and that the Minister will accept that they are still being used to poison wildlife—not just carbofuran, but the other ones I listed—perhaps it does make sense to put them on the list under NERC.

[George Eustice]

If, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is a low conviction rate for the illegal use of these chemicals, that suggests a difficulty in or lack of enforcement, not that the law is falling short in allowing prosecution. There is no material difference between being able to find that somebody is storing a chemical or having it hidden away in the garage or a farm shed and their having possession of it. Therefore that would not change the ability to get convictions on this front.

The Committee recommended that the Government introduce a new offence in England of vicarious liability—mentioned by the shadow Minister and other hon. Members—following the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce the offence in January 2012. The Law Commission has been considering the issue further as part of its wildlife law project. I understand that the commission will publish a report shortly setting out its conclusions following consultation, which will include its views on whether to introduce an offence of vicarious liability. It would probably be prudent to await that report before commenting further.

The Committee also recommended that the national wildlife crime unit be directed and funded to develop a wildlife crime database of incidents reported to the police and of prosecutions. Although I can see why the Committee made that recommendation, recording that information alone is not the answer. To better understand the nature of wildlife crime being committed across the UK, the unit works with Government Departments, police force intelligence bureaux and scientific and other organisations to produce an intelligence-based assessment of current, emerging and future wildlife crime threats, with recommendations for action. That approach ensures the best use of the unit’s time and resources and focuses attention firmly on intelligence, which is consistent with modern policing procedures and practices. I am concerned that if we diverted the unit’s efforts into developing a database, it might take effort and resources away from intelligence and the pursuit of leads.

The unit launched a new website in June 2013 that contains lots of useful information and background, and it is already proving to be a useful resource and source of information. I hope that hon. Members who take an interest in wildlife crime will look at that website, because it helps to share information.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned the rather technical issue of the proposed changes to the COTES regulations and asked specifically when that is likely to be concluded. There is an ongoing consultation, and the tweaks to the COTES regulations are quite technical. We had initially hoped to conclude at some point this year, but since then there have been additional EU directives that the consultation must take into account. As a result, we expect the consultation to be published some time in 2014. The consultation, nevertheless, is under way, which I hope reassures her.

As I draw to a close, I once again thank the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. I also thank all the hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. Wildlife law enforcement is of course a wide-ranging issue. The law is sometimes complex and overlapping, arising as it does from international, European and domestic legislation. There will always be a balance to be struck, for example, between what we can achieve and where best to focus our combined energies and commitment to deliver the greatest benefit, and I suspect we will never all agree on where our activity should focus. I am absolutely convinced, however, that this is an area where we cannot reduce our effort and where we must continue to work together in partnership.

The UK has a good story to tell on its approach to wildlife law enforcement, and our general approach is widely respected across Europe and internationally. We absolutely cannot be complacent, however, and although the Government cannot accept all the Committee’s recommendations, we welcome the Committee’s interest and engagement in this matter.