Welfare of Young Dogs Bred for Sale

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, especially since you yourself have done so much on the issue of animal welfare over the years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this debate, which is undoubtedly an important one on an issue that many Members have strong views about. Indeed, when I was a Back Bencher and a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I spent a number of years pressing for change, and it has been a pleasure to be a Minister responsible for this area.

I start by saying that we have made some progress over the years. First, there had been concern for many years that local authorities were taking an interpretation that said that, if someone was breeding fewer than five litters of puppies per year, they did not need a licence. It took me some time in the Department to get to the bottom of why that was the case—the figure used to be two litters per year. The law had been changed in 1999 because in one debate in Parliament, the view was expressed that the authorities should focus more on large puppy farms and not on smaller breeders. Although the law as drafted means that anyone who is in the business of buying and selling puppies requires a licence, an idea had taken hold—encouraged by a Home Office circular sent at the time in 1999—that five litters per year was the correct threshold to go by. In 2014, therefore, we clarified things. We wrote to all local authorities and made it clear that anyone in the business of breeding and selling puppies, irrespective of the number of litters per year, must have a licence.

The second area where we have made progress is microchipping. I hope hon. Members have seen the attempts in the last few days to raise awareness about the new provisions that will commence from next month. They require all dogs to have a microchip and will make it easier to reunite stray dogs with their owners, to tackle the problem of dog theft and to track down irresponsible dog owners.

The third area where we have undoubtedly made good progress is, as a number of hon. Members have already alluded to, through the Pet Advertising Advisory Group. I pay tribute to those online advertisers who have participated in that group. Some real progress has been made. In total, 130,000 inappropriate adverts have been taken down. We have had volunteers from a number of the animal welfare charities assisting in moderation to do that.

However, when I talk to companies such as Gumtree—I regularly attend the PAAG meetings on these issues—they say that, in the last three years, they have seen an 80% reduction in the number of pets being advertised on their websites. It is a real credit to them that they have engaged in a responsible code of practice that has seen such a drop in the number of pets being advertised online. For instance, if any of those companies see high-velocity sales—that is, if anyone advertises a pet on their website more than three times in a year—they immediately block that individual or firm from being able to advertise again, and they report that to animal welfare charities. If someone has a licence, it must be displayed in any advert on a website, and they have to show a photo.

PAAG also looks for keywords. One of the saddest, most tragic things is when pets are being sold online for use in baiting or dog-fighting. There are certain keywords—code words—that people who are involved in that dreadful and appalling activity understand, and PAAG is now picking up on them.

[Angela Smith]

I am greatly enjoying the Minister’s response to the debate. I acknowledge absolutely the work that charities, online sellers and websites, and indeed the Government, have done on this issue—I will be absolutely honest about that. However, does he not acknowledge in return that there has been a shift from registered sites to unregistered sites, and that more needs to be done?

[George Eustice]

Yes, and I was going to come on to that point.

Finally, Gumtree, Preloved, Friday-Ad, Pets4Homes, Epupz and Vivastreet have already signed up to be members of PAAG, and some of them are now starting to send guidance on buying a puppy and caring for it to anyone who expresses an interest in buying a puppy or searches for puppies online. Again, that is quite a big step forward.

I agree about getting others to sign up. Some of the classified ads are registered and based overseas, and it is harder for us to track them down. Just a few weeks ago I had a meeting with Facebook, to encourage it to participate. It obviously has a slightly different model and it is harder to search for puppies in the same way as on the internet in general. Nevertheless, it has given an undertaking to go away and think about whether there is something it could do.

I also accept that there is more to do, and that is why we are doing more. First and foremost is the consultation, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, that is reviewing the licensing of animal establishments. The consultation closes at the end of the week, and I encourage anyone watching the debate who has ideas to make a contribution. We are looking at a number of key areas, including in relation to puppies.

First, we are reviewing the Pet Animals Act 1951. The Act makes it clear that, if someone is in the business of selling pets online, they require a licence. Not everyone understands that, so we are looking to tighten the provisions to put it beyond doubt that, if someone is internet trading, they require a pet shop licence, whether or not they have a shop in the high street.

The second area we are looking at, and which a number of people have raised with me, is that of selling puppies that are under eight weeks old. Under the new microchipping regulations, it is illegal to microchip or transfer ownership of a dog until it is eight weeks old, but when it comes to pet shops, there is a quirk that allows such practices to continue. We propose to tighten the provision and ban the sale of puppies that are under eight weeks old.

[Sir David Amess]

Does my hon. Friend think it sensible for puppies to be sold in pet shops?

[George Eustice]

Only about 70 pet shops in the whole country still sell puppies. There is a danger that we get distracted by what is a small part of the overall sales when, to me, we should focus our efforts on the much bigger problem of people who are totally unlicensed, not inspected by local authorities, off everyone’s radar and trading on the internet. That is my priority.

Thirdly, on the number of litters, we are adding a condition that puts it beyond doubt that, if someone breeds more than three litters a year, they must have a licence, whether they are in the business of trading puppies or not—it is a backstop. That would bring us into line with countries such as Wales.

We are also looking at the issue of giving information on the sale of a pet, which is particularly important for exotic pets. The matter was considered in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and we are now considering adding it as a legal requirement.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I am going to make some progress—I am conscious of the time.

On enforcement, it is all very well having a licensing system for the breeding of puppies, but it is a big problem if local authorities do not enforce it. The statistics for most local authorities are in single figures. We are considering introducing a system that is accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service under which responsible puppy breeders, who sign up, for instance, to the Kennel Club accreditation scheme for rearing puppies, can be exempt from the licence requirement. Local authority resources could be freed up to go after those who are off the system altogether. In doing that, we borrow an idea that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pioneered in the field of greyhound racing. There is a UKAS-accredited system for most tracks and a backstop local authority licensing system for those outside that system. People have their own views about greyhound racing, but that hybrid system has been successful and we want to learn from it.

A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of enforcement. I accept, particularly when it comes to the importing of puppies, that we can do more. In 2015, the border police, trading standards and the Animal and Plant Health Agency worked together on Operation Bloodhound and brought a number of prosecutions. At the end of last year, I met with our chief veterinary officer to ask what more can be done. Some veterinary practices, particularly in Lithuania, Hungary and Romania, have been fraudulently signing off paperwork for pet passports, and the chief veterinary officer has written to the authorities in those countries to raise his concerns. Investigations have taken place and, in some instances, veterinary licences have been suspended, so we have taken action on that front.

We are also working with the Dogs Trust initiative. The trust has made available some quarantine premises, which is helpful to the work of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Since 2 December, when the operation, led by APHA and local trading standards and supported by Dogs Trust, began, 108 puppies have been licensed into quarantine. The principal reason is that the puppies were under age when inspected by a veterinary officer, either because they had not been left for three weeks after receiving their rabies jab or because they were given the jab prematurely. That is a matter of serious concern and APHA will follow it up, learn lessons from it and raise concerns where necessary with any other European authorities. In one case, there was a deliberate attempt to deceive, with microchips being hidden in the collars of five puppies. The puppies appeared to have valid pet passports but these did not correspond to those particular dogs.

We are doing a lot of work on enforcement but there is more to do. I have considered whether we can do many more random inspections, for instance tracking vehicles that are associated with the trade, working more closely with the border police and making use of thermal imaging. I asked our veterinary experts to give consideration to that. It is not easy. It is a complex area, but we are redoubling our efforts to tackle the terrible trade of illegally imported puppies.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 15 February in Brussels.

The chair of the Council, the Netherlands Minister for Agriculture, presented the work programme for the duration of the Dutch presidency. It focused on the key areas of food security, the future of the common agriculture policy, plant breeders’ rights and patent rights, antimicrobial resistance, market situations, and sustainable fisheries.

Commissioner Vella introduced the first agenda item on the Commission’s proposal to amend rules for the control and management of EU fishing vessels operating outside of EU waters. All member states, including the UK, supported the general aims of the proposals. However, we and a number of others had concerns about increased administrative burdens and coherence of EU rules with relevant regional fisheries management organisations. Concerns were also raised about the overlap of member state and Commission responsibility for issuing authorisations, on the grounds of subsidiarity. The presidency noted it hopes to agree a Council general approach in May or June 2016.

The second agenda item was on establishing an animal welfare platform—a paper which was put forward by Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. The Council broadly supported this, which would allow experts to further exchange best practice and harmonise data and animal welfare across all member states. France stressed the need to include animal welfare standards in future international trade negotiations.

Before lunch, a brief overview was given by the presidency on the antimicrobial resistance conference which took place in Amsterdam on 9 and 10 February. The UK, Denmark and Slovenia supported making this issue a priority.

After lunch, Commissioner Hogan updated the Council on EU trade and ongoing negotiations. He highlighted that EU exports were 6% higher than the previous year and that he was continuing to support sectors by increasing export promotions funding, diversifying and increasing EU trade partners and capitalising on opportunities in emerging economies. The Commissioner set out his ambitions to diversify and increase EU trade with a number of countries including China, Japan and the USA and he updated the Council on his recent visits to Colombia and Mexico. He also highlighted the recent success at the World Trade Organisation conference in Nairobi.

I supported the Commissioner in calling for ambitious trade and pushed further consideration of animal welfare in free trade agreements. This was echoed by a number of other member states.

Lastly, Commissioner Hogan summarised the conference on agricultural research held in Brussels on 26-28 January 2016. Many member states intervened welcoming the development and direction of the strategy.

The following were AOB items on the agenda:

Poland tabled a non-paper detailing their concerns on the extension of the restricted area for african swine fever, and called for additional support to the Ukraine to manage the spread of the disease. This was supported by nine other member states.

Poland and Spain led the discussion on agricultural markets highlighting the challenges in the pigmeat, dairy, fruit and vegetable sectors. This led in to a closed ministerial lunch discussion.

[HCWS545]

Bat Habitats Regulation (No. 2) Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I too associate myself with the comments about the sad death of Harry Harpham.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for giving me the opportunity to respond to his Bill. As he indicated, this is a Second Reading in more ways than one, because, a little over a year ago, I stood at the Dispatch Box debating precisely the same Bill. This is an opportunity, as he said, to update the House on what has happened since, although it is obviously a short time in which to make progress on such a long-term problem. I am afraid, however, that the Government still do not support his Bill, for reasons I will explain.

All bats are subject to protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it a criminal offence deliberately to kill, injure, take or disturb bats. There is also a strict liability offence of damaging or destroying their breeding sites or resting places. The Act’s provisions protect bats from disturbance in their place of rest and the obstruction of such locations.

Most of the 18 species of bat found in the UK evolved to live, breed and forage in or around trees and caves, but many have now adapted to roost in buildings, including barns, houses, churches, tunnels and bridges, following the loss of their natural roosting sites through modern agriculture and forestry practices, and also through urban growth. Such artificial roosts are now essential to the survival of many bat species. However, the threat of demolition of old buildings, barn conversions, an increasing use of artificial lighting and the move towards air-tight buildings have highlighted the increasing importance of the remaining roosting sites. Decreasing the protection afforded to bats in these important sites is therefore likely to have a detrimental impact on the conservation status of bats in the UK and would be in contravention of our existing national legislation, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is also underpinned by our obligations under, for instance, the habitats directive.

My hon. Friend’s Bill proposes that surveys must be undertaken before any new buildings are built, to assess the presence of bats in the area; and if there are any bats present, that building should proceed only if bat boxes or other artificial roosts are provided. The requirement to be aware of the existence of bats and to consider the impacts of any build on their numbers already exists. Local planning authorities have a duty to consider biodiversity and the requirements of the habitats directive when considering developments. Mitigation of damage to bat roosts and resting places may be required, but bat boxes and artificial roosts are only two of the possible measures that can be implemented. Each case should be considered on its merits. Furthermore, bats require not just roost sites, but suitable habitats in which to feed. The Bill does not take account of this.

The Bill also proposes to prohibit the placing of wind turbines in the vicinity of any bat habitat. Again, bat surveys are already undertaken at potential wind turbine sites when bats are nearby. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned research on the impact of wind turbines on bats, and I am told the report will be published shortly. My hon. Friend asked for an update on that report, and the fact that it is being published suggests that either it is nearing completion or the finishing touches are being put on it. We expect the report to be published in the spring. Should that research show an impact, we will consider what changes may be needed in the placing of wind turbines. I would make the point, though, that this is not believed to need new legislation; rather, there would simply be a change in planning policy guidance.

Finally, the Bill proposes that bats should be excluded from a building used for public worship unless it has been demonstrated that their presence would not have a significant adverse impact on the users of such a place. Unfortunately, the Bill does not define what a “significant adverse impact” would be. Such a blanket prohibition does not take account of either the potential importance of some churches to vulnerable bat populations or the work the Government are doing to alleviate the impact of bats in such places where they are causing a nuisance or distress. In a changing landscape, where hedgerows and other linear features so important to bats have been lost and other buildings used as roost sites, such as farm outbuildings or other traditional buildings, have been lost or demolished, churches can represent one of the few remaining constant resources for bats, thus giving them a disproportionate significance for the maintenance of bat populations at a favourable conservation status.

However, as I have said previously, the Government recognise and are very sympathetic to the concerns of the many parishioners who are suffering from the negative effects of bats in churches, such as bat droppings. To address this, the Government have invested significant resources in research and development to assess how we can reduce the impact of bats in churches. A recent three-year research project led by DEFRA, along with a pilot project led by Historic England, developed techniques to assist churches with significant bat-related issues. Solutions are ready to be implemented in some churches that were involved in this work. Natural England is currently creating a licensing framework, which will be the mechanism through which these techniques will be delivered.

[Mr Chope]

When does my hon. Friend expect Natural England to complete the licensing framework?

[George Eustice]

I do not have a particular timetable, but the framework is being developed based on the evidence from the research project. I imagine that it could be done relatively quickly.

I thought my hon. Friend took a rather “glass half empty” view of the parliamentary question and the response to it that he received today. The reality is that Heritage Lottery Fund money is being sought to support the roll-out of this work across England and to create an effective national support network for churches that have bat-related issues. He might have misinterpreted one element of the response, because it made it clear that this is a funding application, a decision on which is expected in March this year, and that that funding will support a five-year project. It is not the case that nothing will be done for five years or that further evidence gathering will go on for five years. If the project is supported, it will be largely complete after five years. There is more reason for optimism than my hon. Friend showed.

[Mr Chope]

Obviously, I would not expect the Minister to anticipate not getting the funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, but can he guarantee that, whether or not that application is successful, this work will be carried out, because it would be perverse if it were dependent solely on the success of that bid?

[George Eustice]

When it comes to heritage assets, our churches are almost second to none. We have thousands of churches and they provide incredibly important heritage assets, so I think this bid will be a very strong one. If, however, for some reason the bid were unsuccessful, it goes without saying that we would seek alternative means to fund this important work.

Major positive strides forward are already being made at one church. Work carried out at St Hilda’s in Yorkshire led to the impact of bats being removed altogether, while ensuring that the bats were still able to roost in the roof of the building. This is an excellent example of peaceful co-existence between bats and parishioners in churches.

Let me deal with the habitats directive, another point that my hon. Friend raised. The Commission is working on its REFIT—regulatory fitness and performance programme—proposals, looking at the implementation of the habitats directive. We think it unlikely that any major revisions to the list of species protected by the directive will be made, but the Commission is keen to ensure that implementation is proportionate. That work is carrying on. My hon. Friend will know that things do not always move at a pace in the European Union, but I can assure him that we are in regular dialogue with the Commission on this matter, and we are keen to see the REFIT approach to the directive taking place.

My hon. Friend’s Bill deals with the habitats directive by inserting a notwithstanding clause. The constitutional position is clear: Parliament has the right to set aside directives in the way he describes if it wishes to do so. It would, of course, cause difficulties for our laws internationally, which is why we have tended not to do this. He should understand that we sign up to other international conventions. He sought to make a distinction between the protection of migrating species and species that are here purely domestically. We have signed up to the Bern convention, which encourages wildlife protection in all the countries that are signatories to it—whether or not they are in the European Union and irrespective of whether the species are migrating. The Bern convention makes some reference to bats in this respect.

[Mr Chope]

May I give an example by referring to what happens with migrating birds in Malta? Although Malta is a member of the European Union, it does not seem that any of these rules apply to that country.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The rules do apply to Malta. We have debated in the House some of the challenges posed by dove shooting in Malta, for example. Legal cases have been brought against the Maltese Government on precisely these issues. They have been required, under these regulations, to put in place protection for migrating doves, too.

In conclusion, the current licensing regime administered by Natural England already allows us to address problems caused by protected species such as bats and properly balances the legitimate interest of people in a way that avoids harming wildlife, without the need to change the law. For the reasons I have outlined, the Government oppose this Bill as being both unnecessary and inappropriate. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that I take the issues he has raised very seriously. I hope he will recognise that although it is just one year on, we have indeed made progress with this application to the lottery project and with the ongoing review of the habitats directive. I hope therefore that he will see fit not to push this to a Division.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

6. What assessment she has made of the effect of recent flooding on the agriculture industry.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Farmers in many parts of the country have been affected by the winter flooding, notably in Cumbria, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Scotland and, of course, areas of Northern Ireland. We identified 600 farmers in Cumbria alone who suffered flooding after Storm Desmond. Unlike the Somerset floods two years ago, the flooding events have been relatively short-lived. However, in their wake, considerable damage has been done to stone walls, hedges and tracks. In England, we have established a farm recovery fund to help farmers get back on their feet.

[Tom Elliott]

In Northern Ireland, there is a long-established relationship with the Republic of Ireland Government in relation to Lough Erne and its levels. The UK Government had a relationship, too, from 1950, when that deal was made. Have there been any discussions with the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development about reviewing the levels of Lough Erne to stop farmers from being flooded in the area?

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, flooding is a devolved matter, but if there is a need for discussion with the Irish Republic and if the Northern Ireland Administration would like me to be involved in that, I would be happy to have that conversation with them.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Farmers in areas in the south of my constituency, around Methley and Mickletown, have had large areas of their land flooded to hold water in order to prevent flooding of housing, which the farmers themselves agree with. However, what they do not agree with is the Environment Agency saying that it could take up to six years for this water to drain off the land. One particular farmer in my constituency had 80% of his land covered. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Environment Agency to speed up the draining of the water from this land?

[George Eustice]

That is a good point. Natural flood plains play an important role in alleviating the risk of flooding in urban areas. We intend to use the countryside stewardship scheme to help us to deal with flood problems. As for my hon. Friend’s specific point about the length of time for which land has been flooded, I shall be happy to take it up with the Environment Agency and see what can be done.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am still waiting to hear the date of the meeting with Members whose constituencies lie along the River Wharfe to discuss the flooded farmland in Pool-in-Wharfedale and Arthington, in my constituency. We particularly need to discuss what can be done upstream to prevent the water from coming down and threatening both farms and housing. When can we have that meeting?

[George Eustice]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the floods Minister, has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and will be willing to meet him to discuss his concerns. My hon. Friend has already had many meetings with the many Members who have been affected by winter floods.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that DEFRA wants to be able to spend more on flood defences by reducing the millions paid in penalties to the EU every year. However, the National Audit Office says that the Rural Payments Agency fiasco could cost the country a whopping £180 million a year in penalties. Can the Minister confirm the most recent estimate of the amounts that are being paid to Brussels in fines, rather than being spent on British agriculture and dealing with flooding?

[George Eustice]

The “horizontal” regulation that governs the disallowance system has been changed, and the penalties that the Commission can charge, and their frequency, have increased. That is the issue of concern in this instance, rather than any particular issues involving the rural payments system. I repeat that we are spending £2.3 billion a year on flood defences, and have provided £200 million to help people to get back on their feet after the most recent episode.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

7. What assessment the Government have made of the contribution of nature improvement areas to habitat creation and wildlife conservation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T6. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will reallocate fishing quota from those who hold it only as an investment to active, small-scale fishermen such as those who fish out of Lowestoft, who bring real benefits to their local community?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we had a manifesto commitment to rebalance quotas, and we have already commenced that this year, with the quota uplift that comes with the introduction of the landing obligation. We have made it clear that we will give the first 100 tonnes, and 10% thereafter, to the under-10 metres, and this year it will give them an extra 1,000 tonnes of fish.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

T2. The recent Tesco case has shown the importance of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Does the Secretary of State share the view of the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales and many in the dairy sector that now is the time to consider extending the adjudicator’s remit right across the supply chain, from gate to plate, even if that requires legislative change?

[George Eustice]

I am aware of the representations made by the NFU and of the conclusions of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in this regard. I know that colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are about to commence a review of the role of the adjudicator so far, and it may well be that as part of that they look at how the code is implemented. There would be challenges involved in trying to regulate things that far up, with thousands and thousands of different relationships to police, but we hear what has been said and we will look at this matter.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T8. Cross-compliance rules prevent hedge cutting in August, yet the only bird that seems to be nesting at that time is the very prolific wood pigeon. The rules are preventing farmers from doing vital work, as they are unable to get on to that land during August. Will Ministers agree to look at this to see what can be done to change these rules?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I am always looking at the cross-compliance rules to see whether we can introduce proportionality. I do not agree with him that it is just the wood pigeon that is being protected; yellowhammers and other rare species that we are trying to encourage to recover also have second broods later in the year.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

One less well-publicised deal the UK has been negotiating with our European partners recently is the circular economy package, which could not only bring about significant environmental benefits, but create jobs and growth. The Government, however, do not seem to have a strategy for achieving the ambitious waste targets set out there or for unlocking the economic opportunities that would come from greater resource efficiency. When are we going to have a proper waste resources strategy from the Secretary of State?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

T3. I welcome the announcement of further marine conservation zones around our coast to protect our wildlife. However, back in November 2012, when the previous round of MCZs was announced, many in my constituency were very concerned that the zone to protect Hilbre Island was dropped at the eleventh hour, especially in the light of the licence for underground coal gasification that exists in the Dee. Why was Hilbre Island not included in this latest round?

[George Eustice]

We ruled out Hilbre Island, following assessments by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, because the simple truth was that the features that people said were there were not there sufficiently for us to designate those areas.

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

For farmers, farmgate prices are so low that the single farm payment is absolutely essential. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Rural Payments Agency recognises that there are still too many farmers who have not received their payments, and that work is being done to ensure that, next year, we catch up so that we are not late in paying again?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Has my hon. Friend thought through the impact of the introduction of marine conservation zones on the under-10-metre fleet? That could have an effect on smaller, non-nomadic boats, which might be banned from fishing in their own grounds.

[George Eustice]

I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that the interests of fishermen are taken into account when we make decisions on these designations. It is important to note that designation does not mean that we ban fishing; it may mean, for instance, limitations on the particular types of bottom-trawling gear that do most damage.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Basic Payment Scheme

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) on securing this highly important debate. I completely understand—a number of hon. Members have discussed this—the importance of these payments to farmers, particularly in a year when farmers have suffered low commodity prices and when sectors, such as the dairy industry in particular, have been in the doldrums and suffering severe difficulties.

I will begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who has the analysis of what has caused these problems this year absolutely spot on. He was no doubt briefed by the Scottish Government, who have had similar problems. The root cause of our difficulties is the new common agricultural policy. We aimed to get a simpler CAP in the last Parliament. However, we have ended up with something far more complex, because the European Commission was determined to add what it called the greening of pillar 1 payments. We therefore have to map every hedge in the entire country, and there is a whole plethora of rules about the minimum width of a hedge, the maximum width of a hedge, what size a gateway can be, what type of crops can be grown over the other side of a hedge—and it goes on and on forever. There is an incredibly complex set of greening rules, including the three-crop rule that every farmer must now grow three different crops on their holding.

In addition, we have seen the integrated administration and control system—a very intensive system of enforcement —brought into the pillar 2 schemes, which has also added complexity to our countryside stewardship scheme, which is causing a parallel problem.

To deal with all those problems, we needed a new IT system. The truth is that the core of that system—the bit that processed the rules—actually worked well. It was made by a company called Abaco, which had a track record in this area. The bit that processed the rules worked well, as did the payment engine—sometimes called the back end of the system—which is successfully paying people.

The bit that we had difficulty with at the beginning of last year was the interface at the front that was supposed to enable farmers to do their online applications. We realised by the time that we got to the end of February that it would not be possible to make that dovetail successfully at the correct speeds needed to do online applications last year, so we had to switch to a paper-based application and delay the deadline for a month.

I want to put on record my praise for the work that the RPA has put into the scheme. A number of hon. Members have been critical of the RPA, but I think that it falls to me, as the person who is dealing with it week in, week out, to praise its work. We have had between 800 and 1,000 people in the RPA working on this seven days a week to try to get these applications on the system and to get payments out to farmers as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) asked whether we had the right expertise in the RPA. It is true that, in a typical year, we would have about 400 people working on BPS applications. We have brought in additional people from other agencies, as well as what is called the surge force of civil servants working in the Cabinet Office—a flexible team of people who can be deployed to unexpected workloads. Therefore, people are there who have not traditionally been in the RPA; nevertheless, they have worked incredibly hard to get to where we are now.

Turning to the RPA’s leadership, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells pointed to the exceptional track record we have had over the past three years. It was not always like that. A decade ago, things were in an incredibly bad state. Today, the same leadership team are turning around the difficulties we had at the start of this programme. They have delivered the exceptional results that he pointed to, and I have great confidence in them.

I will just point out what has been achieved to date. We took on this difficult position and paid 33,000 farmers on day one—on 1 December—when the payment window opened, and we had paid more than half by the end of December. As of yesterday—a number of Members have pointed this out—we have paid 61,278 farmers. That takes us to just over 70%. As I speak, we are working on the final batch of payments, which will go out before the end of March and will take us to the vast majority of payments having been made.

[James Heappey]

I suspect that the Minister misspoke, but I invite him to clarify what he said. He said that we are working today on payments to be made by the end of March. Does he mean the end of the month?

[George Eustice]

Sorry, yes, I meant by the end of the month—I am sorry if I said by the end of March. We will have a final batch, which will take the figure probably above 75%, but it is not certain; that is still being worked on now.

We should highlight the fact that we worked quickly to get the dairy support fund out. It went out earlier than expected in the middle of November to help hard- pressed dairy farmers.

[Nick Smith]

I was just listening to the Minister’s comments. Will he confirm whether he thinks that the “vast majority” is 75% of farmers? Is that the definition he is using?

[George Eustice]

We could agonise over the definition of “vast majority”, but as far as I am concerned, “over 60,000” is a vast number of applications and a vast amount of work has gone into processing them.

We should recognise what has been done on the entry level and higher level stewardship schemes. Again, we had a difficult start because of the paper application process, but 97% of applicants have now had their first instalment and 60% have received their second instalment a month earlier than normal. We have made progress, but there is further to go.

Some people will ask why we cannot just pay and why things are so complicated. As the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said, there is a good reason for that. Under regulations and law, the EU requires certain inspections and verification to be carried out. The truth is that we tried to get the Commission to relax those requirements to enable us to expedite payments this year, but it refused. We cannot make those payments from the EU until those various checks and the validation of claims have been completed.

A number of hon. Members referred to communications. In November, we wrote to around 15,000 farmers whom we anticipated would not be paid by the end of January. The two primary groups are some 4,700 farmers with common land—I will come back to them—and around 9,000 farms that had inspections of one sort or another.

A number of hon. Members mentioned part-payments. We considered this, but we ruled it out and I will explain a couple of reasons why I think that we were right. Scotland has decided to make part-payments. It has 3,500 farmers and, according the latest figures I have seen, around 18% of them had received a part-payment of 70%. Compare that with this country where 70% of farmers have received everything. That is a better position to be in. Had we taken a decision in November at the end of last year to start chopping and changing plans again and messing around to try to get part-payments out, even fewer farmers might have received them, never mind receiving full payment.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I accept the Minister’s point about the overall strategy at DEFRA, but what about those really difficult and deserving cases with very complicated problems of reconciliation, cross-compliance and so on, such as those with commons? Surely, there is an argument in those few rare cases to go for part- payment.

[George Eustice]

I will come to that, but we should remember the experience of 2005. Some hon. Members have said we should learn lessons. Let us remember that in 2005 no one was paid in December, no one was paid in January, no one was paid in February and no one was paid in March. The first farmer to be paid was paid in March. Then, the last Labour Government decided to switch to a part-payment system and got themselves into a complete muddle that took a couple of years to sort out because of all the reconciliation that had to be done afterwards. They found that farmers had received inaccurate payments and it caused all manner of difficulties. For that reason, we should be cautious.

We should realise that, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the payment window does not open in May, but closes in May. The next application window opens in March, which is not long to go—five or so weeks. I want staff in the RPA to be working on making sure we get next year’s applications right and through, rather than messing around doing part-payments of this year’s applications.

I want to say what we have done. We have introduced a hardship fund. We have worked closely with groups such as the Farming Community Network that provide a triage process. If a farmer is suffering real hardship and cannot, for example, buy feed for their cattle, they are fast-tracked. In some cases, if we can we speed up an application, we make we sure we get it through as quickly as possible. In other cases when we suspect they will not be paid in a hurry, we have in many cases made part-payments on account cash-flowed by the Treasury—not EU-funded, which would expose us to difficulties, but on account from the Treasury.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I will not give way because I want to cover a few more points and leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Wells.

Some hon. Members have talked about the banks. I have been meeting them regularly and encouraging them to show forbearance to farmers. One reason why we sent a letter last November to those who were not expected to get their payment at the end of January was that they could take it to the banks, which were ready for that.

A number of hon. Members talked about communications. As I said, a letter went out in November and a further letter has gone out to those not receiving payments now, in January. The RPA has held almost weekly meetings with key NFU office holders and regularly attends NFU councils, so I do not accept the allegation that people have been kept in the dark and not informed. What I can understand is the understandable frustration among farmers who have not yet received their payments. That is spilling out in criticism of communication, which is probably a little unfair.

I want to talk about next year. A number of hon. Members asked about lessons. The reality is that we now have all these data on the core system. For next year, farmers will start from the position they left off in this year. We are confident that having done all the difficult work to get those applications on, from here forward it will be far easier. We will offer paper applications to those farmers who want them next year, but we hope that those who were previously online—about 70% up until 2014—will return to being online.

I want quickly to cover the issue of commons, which was raised by a number of hon. Members. We had a legal challenge from a local authority in Minchinhampton. It challenged the very basis on which we used to make payments and it caused huge difficulty for everyone. The issue is not about just having a plan B; the problem is that the methodology that it has now forced on us through its challenge means that it is impossible to pay anyone on a common until we have resolved all those claims. Our biggest difficulty in relation to many of these commons is that the National Trust has a large, complex claim that has always taken a long time to resolve. That has caused us a particular difficulty with common land, but we are recognising that and doing what we can to try to speed things up.

I want to leave a bit of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, but I will answer these questions. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) asked about the deadline for this year. It will be May; it will go back to the normal time. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) talked about some of the difficulties that the Welsh Government have experienced with requirements imposed by the EU, particularly in relation to accurate mapping and the difficulties with shade from woodlands. This goes back to my initial point. We are now in an era with an incredibly complex CAP, causing many difficulties.

We have had a very important debate, covering many different issues. We have not got on to the exciting issue of the European Union and the potential impact of the referendum, but we will have much more time to discuss that in the months ahead.

[James Heappey]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s debate and all those who made themselves available to brief us so that it could be so well informed. I would like to pick up a couple of points. I am very grateful to the Minister for attending. He is a worthy champion of our nation’s farming and fishing and has addressed the vast majority of the issues raised in the debate. He will expect us to hold him to account as we move forward. An uncertainty does remain, and that uncertainty is deeply worrying for our farmers; we have to recognise that.

We need to be absolutely clear about when the remaining payments will be made. I appreciate that it is very difficult to do that from the Minister’s place in a debate such as this, but I assume that the RPA is watching and I know that he will chase it when he gets back to his office to make absolutely sure that the plan for the remaining payments is communicated accurately and urgently, so that people know when their money will come. The point about speaking with colleagues at the Treasury to discuss what can be done about the looming tax deadline is a very good one, and I hope that the Minister will work on that.

The Minister spoke about the IT system being good enough for Government work in its core process and in the payment engine. I just hope that he will note my suggestion, which has been made to me by others, that a system that is rural-proof—and that therefore saves every time someone clicks “next”—would be an important development.

[George Eustice]

I can confirm that the system already enables people to save part-prepared applications. I can confirm also that we are in constant dialogue with the Treasury and HMRC to encourage them to show forbearance.

[James Heappey]

My time is slipping by quickly, but I believe that that is an active decision to save. An automatic one, because people are not in control of when their system crashes or their broadband drops out, might be a worthwhile improvement.

Most important of all, will the Minister reassure us that the RPA, although it is in very close contact with the big issue of making the remaining payments, has the space also to plan for what might come next year, and that these lessons can be applied? It would be unforgivable to have all the right urgency in making the remaining payments, but then for the lessons not to be applied for next year, so the same mistakes are made again. The Minister will expect us to hold him to account on that as we go forward. It is an urgent issue. We need to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated in relation to this year’s applications and next year’s payments.

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (Variation of Schedule 8) (England) Order 2015

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (Variation of Schedule 8) (England) Order 2015.

I am grateful to the Committee for considering this Government proposal to update the provisions governing agricultural tenancy compensation set out in schedule 8 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. In essence, this proposal is all about the value of farmyard manure. Those of us—there are some in this room—who have been farmers will understand that farmyard manure has a very important role to play in the quality of our land, the fertility of our land and the structure of soils.

The reform applies to all landlords and tenants in England who have agricultural tenancy agreements governed by the 1986 Act. Approximately 21,500 such tenancies remain in England, accounting for approximately 17% of agricultural land. They tend to be traditional lifetime tenancies, with succession rights of up to two generations.

The 1986 Act sets out detailed provisions governing the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement between landlords and agricultural tenants governed by the Act. Certain provisions in the 1986 Act have become out of step with modern farming practices. The changes will deliver the final reform in a package of proposals, on which we consulted in 2014, aimed at updating and modernising the 1986 Act. The changes have the support of industry representatives—both landlords and tenants.

Schedule 8 to the 1986 Act entitles outgoing agricultural tenants to be compensated for short-term improvements they have made to the holding that have value to an incoming tenant, in order to incentivise outgoing tenants to farm sustainably and to keep the land productive during the last years of their tenancy. The schedule is now out of date with respect to current farming practices in the following ways.

First, compensation can currently be claimed only for purchased manure and fertiliser applied to the land, thereby excluding other beneficial material, such as digestate, which is the by-product of anaerobic digestion, and soil improvers such as compost, which are now often used on farms to improve soil condition. We are therefore broadening the list of improvements eligible for compensation to include digestate and soil improvers, and we are removing the restriction on allowing compensation for purchased manure and fertiliser. Those changes will mean that compensation can be claimed for improvements from manure, fertiliser, soil improvers and digestate applied to the land, regardless of whether they are purchased, created on-farm or otherwise acquired, as that has no bearing on the soil improvements delivered.

Secondly, manure is currently compensated for only if it comes from horses, cattle, sheep, pigs or poultry, which excludes other species now found on farms, such as alpacas and llamas. We are therefore broadening the scope of the schedule to allow compensation for manure derived from a broader range of livestock on the holding that is held in storage. Those changes will update and modernise the schedule, to provide a more effective incentive to outgoing tenants to leave the soil in good condition for incoming tenants. They are supported by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which includes representatives of tenant farmers, landlords and professionals such as agricultural valuers, surveyors and solicitors.

We ran an eight-week consultation on the changes in 2014 and received 19 responses, with the majority of consultees supporting the changes, including key industry representatives such as the Country Land and Business Association, which represents landowners, and the Tenant Farmers Association and National Farmers Union, which represent tenant farmers. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I shall move quickly to address some of the issues raised. First, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, raised the point about improvements and whether there is a dispute in that regard. That is not necessarily a new problem, in that there would have been that problem even previously had this been restricted just to the purchased manures rather than manures generated on farm.

However, we do have a tried and tested way of resolving the issue. It basically enables landowners, landlords and tenants, if they cannot agree among themselves, to appoint an independent person to deal with the matter on their behalf. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that arbitration is expensive, but I draw his attention to the fact that this order is part of a package of measures. It is the latest statutory instrument; we introduced SIs before the break-up of Parliament ahead of the last election. One of those, for instance, enabled third-party expert determination to be put in place as an alternative dispute mechanism to arbitration; that is certainly a cheaper approach. It also removed the prescribed approach for calculating end-of-tenancy compensation to give landlords and tenants much more flexibility to agree these things among themselves. Given the background of the earlier changes we put in place, I think we have the issue covered.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of raising awareness. As I said, we worked closely throughout the consultation with the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which includes all the major stakeholders. As has been highlighted, there has also been some coverage in the agricultural press of the changes we are making. In addition, such negotiations are quite important for the tenant and the landlord as the tenant gets towards the end of their tenancy—particularly a 1986 tenancy—so land agents are likely to become involved. It is their job to understand legislation such as this and to make sure that outgoing tenants are aware of their rights under the changes before us.

I turn now to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset. He asked whether donkeys were covered. I can confirm that the existing legislation already covers equidae. It is quite broad. It covers donkeys and asses, so it covers all types of equidae. My hon. Friend also asked whether there was a restriction on what animals can be fed. There has always been legislation that handles that issue. It looks at the feedstuffs that animals can be fed for the relevant part of the legislation to be satisfied.

On my hon. Friend’s final point, about digestate, the Environment Agency obviously has a role to play in making sure that regulations are complied with. If there are problems with contamination, the agency should take responsibility for looking at that. However, in terms of whether digestate improves the quality of the soil, I am sure a valuer would take that into account in their considerations.

In conclusion, the proposed changes will update and modernise the compensation provisions in schedule 8 to the 1986 Act, bringing them in line with current farming practices. That will ensure that they give outgoing tenants an effective incentive in terms of farm sustainability in the final years of their tenancy so that they leave the soil in good condition for incoming tenants. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Food Security

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing the debate? His constituency neighbours mine and I know that he champions the interests of farmers in his constituency. Indeed, we often jointly attend west Cornwall branch meetings of the National Farmers Union, and in the autumn I had the pleasure of speaking at a village called Madron in his constituency, which ran a series of events on the future of farming.

I worked in the farming industry for 10 years. I care deeply about the industry, and the Government value the role of agriculture and our food industry because it is the biggest industry in the country. Food manufacturing is our biggest manufacturing industry—bigger than the aerospace and automotive industries put together. It is worth about £100 billion a year throughout the supply chain and employs about one in eight people. That is why we made a manifesto commitment to put in place a 25-year food and farming plan, which is currently under development and will be published in the spring. It will look at how we attract new skills to the industry, how we use technology to improve productivity and use of resources, how we open new export markets, and how we develop risk management tools for the agricultural industry.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) pointed out, there is growing consumer interest in food provenance. People want to know where their food comes from. There is a growing interest in local sourcing and local brands, particularly in Cornwall where we have some strong local food brands. We are keen to develop that, so 2016 will be the year of great British food. Our Great British Food unit will champion those artisan food producers throughout the course of the year.

We are also doing a huge amount on exports. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) asked about that. At the end of last year, the Secretary of State went to China and was successful in opening new markets for British barley and for pigs’ trotters. In fact, we have been opening about 100 new markets a year over the past two or three years. Our food exports are now rising to £19 billion a year.

We have made some very good progress on exports, but I do not deny for a moment that farming is going through an incredibly tough and difficult time, due to a number of factors. The exchange rate of the pound against the euro is not favourable to farmers; the weakness of the euro has put pressure on all commodity prices for British farmers. Set against that, there has been a global oversupply in many areas and some key markets have been disrupted. In Europe, milk production has risen by about 10% due to very good weather and favourable conditions for production. That has had a downward pressure on prices and, as many hon. Members have said, many farmers are experiencing prices that are well below the cost of production.

There has been difficulty in other sectors such as pig production, where the market in Russia has been disrupted, exacerbating the problems. There has also been difficulty with lamb. New Zealand lamb has been finding it more difficult to get access to the Chinese market, so there has been a surplus of New Zealand lamb on the world market. Despite those short-term pressures, my message is that the long-term prospects for our farming industry remain good. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said, there is a growing world population. It is set to reach about 9 billion by 2050 and many projections suggest a rise in demand for food of about 60%. That brings me to the issue of food security.

As the shadow Minister said, we are clear that there are two key elements to delivering food security in the world. One is that we must have open markets and the second is that we must have a vibrant, profitable and successful food production and supply system. The reason that self-sufficiency and food production alone is not enough to guarantee food security is that farming is always at the mercy of the weather. If there is a severe weather event in one part of the country, we need to be able to move food around the world, so open markets are crucial to ensuring food security.

Although our self-sufficiency is lower now, at about 64%, than it was at its peak in the late 1980s, we should recognise that then there was an incredibly distorting common agricultural policy. It was an era of grain mountains, butter mountains, wine lakes and so on. That had a distorting effect. Against historical standards, we are still producing far more of our food than we have done in the past. Indeed, in the 1930s just before the second world war, our food self-sufficiency was only about 30% to 35%, so things are not as bad as some would suggest. However, if the Government do what we want to do—produce more, sell more, export more and import less—over time I hope that our current self-sufficiency will improve.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives posed a number of questions. He raised the plight of cauliflower growers in Cornwall, many of whom are in my constituency. That situation is wholly driven by weather. The autumn has been warm and many of the varieties have come in simultaneously, which has caused particular problems. I agree with him about country of origin. The UK has been at the fore of arguing in the EU for mandatory country of origin labelling—successfully when it comes to beef, pork, poultry and other fresh meats. We have been arguing tenaciously for country of origin labelling to be mandatory on some dairy products. I have to say that the Commission is pushing back on that at the moment, but we will redouble our efforts to improve the voluntary code in that regard.

My hon. Friend also asked what supermarkets are doing. It is important to recognise that and to give credit where credit is due. For instance, Morrisons has its “Milk for Farmers” brand. Many people scoffed at that when it came out, but it has actually been very successful. It pays an extra 10p a litre to farmers and its sales have well exceeded expectations, which shows a consumer interest in helping British agriculture. The other thing is that many of the main supermarkets, including Sainsbury’s, Tesco, M&S and the Co-op all have aligned contracts with virtually all of their liquid milk suppliers. The farmers supplying some of those supermarkets with liquid milk in particular are still quite often getting somewhere in the region of 29p to 32p a litre. There is a wide spread of fortunes in the dairy industry currently and we should recognise that some supermarkets are supporting farming through aligned contracts. Tesco is experimenting with the idea of an aligned contract on cheese, although that is more difficult because it is more exposed to commodity markets. M&S has also experimented with aligned contracts in other sectors, such as lamb.

On the other questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, public sector procurement is an important issue. We set up the Bonfield report to set out a balanced scorecard so that more locally sourced food is bought by the public sector. He asked what we are doing to back British farming. We have our Great British Food campaign and we will be working with organisations such as the NFU. He is right to highlight the benefits of animal welfare that we have. In fact, World Animal Protection rates the UK as top in the whole world for farm animal welfare. When it comes to getting a fair price, we are doing things to try to improve risk management so that farmers can mitigate the price volatility that they experience.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the issues in Northern Ireland. There has been a particularly difficult situation with dairy in Northern Ireland and we have recognised that by arguing for an increased share of the support fund from the EU in November. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked about the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That will be reviewed later this year by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We have now put in place the ability for it to levy fines of up to 1% of turnover. In fact, looking at the survey data, the number of complaints about supermarkets has gone down slightly and Christine Tacon reports that more buyers and more suppliers to supermarkets are using the code in the way that they should.

The hon. Members from the Scottish National party mentioned convergence uplift. I am meeting NFU Scotland later this week. I have committed to reviewing that once everybody is on an area-based payment system, and we will continue to do that. Finally, a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, made a very important point about fisheries. I completely agree with that, although I do not share the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall that it is all bad news. We have seen big uplifts for plaice, haddock and cod this year, which shows the benefit of sustainable fishing.

In conclusion, we have had a very good debate in which lots of interesting points were raised. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives on securing the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of the potential contribution of data and technology to maximising the potential of British food and farming.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Data and technology have a central role to play in maximising the potential of British food and farming. There are huge numbers of datasets in existence relating to issues such as crop yields and disease. In October we launched the first of our centres of excellence under the agri-tech strategy. The AgriMetrics Centre will use £12 million of Government funding to develop computer models to enable us to harness these data.

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank the Minister for that answer, and will he join me in welcoming the Eastern AgriGate Research Hub, which opened last month in Soham and is developing pioneering technologies to reduce crop waste and food waste and boost production? Does he agree that we need to invest further in agri-tech to grow our industries, such as those in Cambridgeshire?

[George Eustice]

My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and I welcome the Eastern AgriGate Research Hub which she opened recently. Improving productivity and reducing waste requires innovation that works on a commercial scale, and the new hub will develop these solutions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that technology has a role to play in reducing waste and improving our use of resources.

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

First, may I wish the whole of the British countryside, and even the Secretary of State, a very happy Christmas? You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that even though I am the MP for Huddersfield I am not a Luddite. I am absolutely in favour of good management in the rural environment and in our agriculture, and using data and technology, but the other side of that is that much of our countryside is being destroyed for wildlife by industrial farming. That is the truth of the matter. Indeed, even in Cambridgeshire there are whole swathes of the countryside with nothing living to be seen. We must get the balance right between protecting the environment and using technology in agriculture.

[George Eustice]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to get the balance right, but I disagree with his view that we are not getting it right. We have for many years now had very successful countryside stewardship schemes with billions of pounds invested in creating new habitats for wildlife so that we can see a recovery in farmland bird populations and an improvement in, for instance, the number of pollinators.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

May I also wish you, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers and those in the Department a merry Christmas, and indeed a peaceful new year, even sometimes in this place? I want to emphasise the issue of online services in the Department. While they are very useful and helpful, not every farming community has good rural broadband and they do not always replace the face-to-face contact that is required by farmers.

[George Eustice]

We recognise that, which is why we will in future be ensuring that farmers who want to submit their basic payment scheme applications on paper will be able to do so, but the Government are also investing hundreds of millions of pounds to bring broadband to areas that do not currently have it.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

3. What progress her Department is making on reducing air pollution to within legal limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

8. If she will issue guidance on siting poultry sheds as close as possible to the place of slaughter.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Decisions on the location of agricultural buildings are a matter for the relevant local authority, which will assess each application on its merits taking into account its local plan. In addition to planning permission, an environmental permit is required for intensive poultry farms, and the Environment Agency will consider impacts such as noise and odour. However, through our food enterprise zones, which we are currently piloting, we are seeking to remove some of the barriers and make it easier for food enterprises to co-locate in the same geographic areas.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive answer. He will of course be aware that the Animal Welfare (Transport) (England) Order 2006 requires operators to minimise the journey time for animals—rightly so—and his departmental guidance reflects that. Does he agree that that should be a material consideration in planning terms to ensure that, in modern animal husbandry, we minimise the distance that animals have to travel to abattoirs?

[George Eustice]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. As he pointed out, there are robust regulations in place at both a European and a UK level, which specify, for instance, minimum journey times and rest times, and set-down requirements for the lorries carrying out that transport. It is not always possible to co-locate factories close to where poultry are because often the investment requires a large number of poultry farms supplying one abattoir.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to meet EU recycling targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment she has made of the value for money of the CAP delivery programme.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The National Audit Office recently completed an early review of the common agricultural policy delivery programme. Despite difficulties, the programme is on course to realise a positive net present value of £197.7 million over the next eight years. The CAP has been the most complex ever, but despite that the core of the system is working. The Rural Payments Agency has already paid over 40% of farmers their basic payment scheme payment for this year and we are on course to pay the vast majority by the end of January.

[Conor McGinn]

The National Farmers Union reports that many flood-hit farmers in the north-west have received a double whammy, having been informed by the Rural Payments Agency that they will not receive their payments until February at the earliest. All the Secretary of State could say on Tuesday was that the Government are seeing what they can do. Perhaps the Minister can now outline exactly what they are doing to ensure that those farmers receive payments before Christmas.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are very conscious of the plight of farmers in Cumbria. In respect of those with common land, although we had previously said that we would have difficulty paying them before February owing to the complexity of that system, we have identified the 600 affected farms in Cumbria and we will be prioritising them.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

A merry Christmas and a happy new year, Mr Speaker, to you and your staff.

Last week the NFU Scotland confirmed that most farms in Scotland rely on the CAP payments to survive. Without ducking the issue, will the Minister confirm that in the event of Britain leaving the EU, the UK Government will guarantee the same level of payments to farms so that they can survive?

[George Eustice]

I would simply say that in terms of the current year’s BPS, it is a matter for the Scottish Government to ensure that Scottish farmers get their payments on time. We all have a debate to look forward to about Britain’s membership of the European Union.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Alan Brown. Does the hon. Gentleman want to ask a second question? Am I mistaken in that surmise?

[Alan Brown]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understood that I had only one question.

If Britain votes to leave the European Union, will the UK Government guarantee the same level of CAP payments to Scottish farmers? Will the Minister please answer this time?

[George Eustice]

The Government’s position is very clear: we want to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union and see some powers come back to the UK. We will put that to the British public in a referendum and they will decide. Should the UK decide to leave the European Union, at that point the Government would obviously set a national agricultural policy.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

DEFRA’s mismanagement of the CAP delivery programme saw very senior managers embroiled in childish squabbling. This flagship IT project then spiralled £60 million over budget. It was so useless that farmers were forced to switch back to pen and paper. With the NAO predicting millions in penalties as a result, why did the Minister not intervene to save farmers and taxpayers from this IT disaster?

[George Eustice]

I simply point out that we did intervene. We acted in March, once we realised there was going to be difficulty, to ensure that all farmers could get their applications in on time on a paper-based system, and we have worked very hard since then to ensure that we enter it on the core of the system, which has worked well.

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

11. What steps her Department is taking to make the dairy industry more resilient to the volatility of world milk prices.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We understand the pressures facing dairy farmers and have taken action to ease their cash-flow problems. The £26.2 million aid package we secured from the European Commission will provide some immediate relief. In addition to that short-term support, we are introducing a fairer tax system for farmers, pushing for clearer labelling of British dairy products and developing a futures market for dairy.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I press him a little harder on this subject, rather as happened with the Sussex wine? What help is his Department able to offer milk processers so that they can add more value to milk products, enhancing the opportunities to export them around the world?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. DEFRA has previously supported investment in processing, for instance at Davidstow in Cornwall, through the rural development programme. We are investigating the potential to use funds through the European Investment Bank to make loan capital available to invest in new processing capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

T4. The Forster family in Moss Bank in my constituency have farmed in St Helens for 125 years. In recent years they have opened a shop at their farm selling their own produce. What are the Government doing to help farmers like the Forsters to develop small business potential which not only showcases the best local produce but encourages people to buy local and eat local?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Through our rural development programme, we are supporting farm businesses that want to diversify and start retailing their own produce.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

T8. Trees are a vital and precious feature of our natural environment, nowhere more so than in areas like Cheltenham, where they act as the town’s green lungs. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on how many trees the Government plan to plant over the course of this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T7. In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority found that neonicotinoids posed a “high acute risk” to honey bees. The e-petition against the use of neonicotinoid pesticides has so far gained more than 90,000 signatures, so what representations will the Government make to the European Commission’s review of its control of neonicotinoids?

[George Eustice]

We had a comprehensive debate on this issue following that petition last week. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is doing a comprehensive piece of research fieldwork on the impact of neonicotinoids on bees. We will ensure that that evidence is put to EFSA before it reaches its conclusions on the interim review next summer.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

To carry on the Christmas spirit, since the Prime Minister was pictured enjoying a pint of Greene King with President Xi, the export of that fine beer from my constituency of Bury St Edmunds has gone up from 3,000 to 50,000 cases. It and other rural exporting businesses in the constituency are keen to learn what work the Department is doing, with the help of UK Trade & Investment, to help fund and organise trade shows and development visits in order to secure such important trade.

Fisheries Policy

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the speech of the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) in the debate on Fisheries Policy in Westminster Hall on 3 December 2015.

[George Eustice]

We are rebalancing the quota. We have made it clear that 25% of the uplift will go to the under-10s. We are doing that by giving the first 100 tonnes to the under-10s, and 10% thereafter. That will mean that next year, for instance, much of the inshore fleet will have a substantial increase in the amount of mackerel they have. There will probably be a trebling of the amount of mackerel, which they will then be able to trade as currency.

[Official Report, 3 December 2015, Vol. 603, c. 223WH.]

Letter of correction from George Eustice:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the debate on Fisheries Policy on 3 December 2015.

The correct response should have been:

[George Eustice]

We are rebalancing the quota. We have made it clear that 25% of the uplift will go to the under-10s. We are doing that by giving the first 100 tonnes to the under-10s, and 10% thereafter. That will mean that next year, for instance, much of the inshore fleet will have a substantial increase in the amount of North sea haddock they have. There will probably be a trebling of the amount of haddock, which they will then be able to trade as currency.

Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) on securing the debate. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), said, this is the third time I have faced him in this role in Westminster Hall—but it is my fourth time if I include another debate when a colleague of his stepped in.

I should begin by apologising for the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), cannot respond to the debate. He has responsibility for the relevant part of the portfolio, but he has been drawn back to Cumbria because of the flooding there, for reasons that I am sure hon. Members will understand. I have had to step into his place at quite short notice, but no one should think that he has no passion for the subject of the debate. I was shown a draft of his speech a little earlier today, and there were some characteristically poetic passages about trees and the passion that he feels for them.

I, too, am passionate about trees. I studied horticulture, and my thesis was on the physiology of deciduous trees in the temperate zone—particularly the issue of how they regulate dormancy. That is an important point: trees define our seasons. They have a remarkable ability accurately to measure day length so that at the same time of the year—every year, whether it is cold or hot—they decide to drop their leaves. They also have a remarkable ability to measure the length of the winter and know when it is safe to burst bud again and start spring. Trees do not get tricked by false springs. No warm snap in January will cause a tree to break dormancy early. They have a remarkable ability to measure the seasons accurately, and they define them.

As we have heard today, our ancient woodlands are highly valued and cherished. We have heard heartfelt contributions from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about ancient woodlands and habitats in their areas. Those woodlands are a resource rich in life, providing homes and food for animals, birds and insects. They store carbon, produce oxygen and filter out pollution. Of course, they also provide some of the most fantastic places for us to enjoy.

England’s woodland coverage is as high as it has been since the 14th century, totalling a little more than 1.3 million hectares, which equates to 41% of the UK total or 10% of England’s land area. Of course, we must not forget the position we were left with after the second world war, when, sadly, much of our ancient woodland was felled and replaced with non-native conifers.

That conifer planting was carried out on a large scale by the public and private sectors as a result of a policy drive to replenish the national timber reserve and to improve the economics of ancient woodlands. Since then we have made huge strides, and throughout the 1970s and 1980s we established the concept of ancient woodland, rich in plant diversity and managed through traditional practices. We now know, of course, that ancient woodlands are an irreplaceable habitat, which is why we recognise their special status in the national planning policy framework, which was last updated in 2012.



Since the last war, great efforts have been made to restore and actively manage our ancient woodlands. Estimates of ancient woodland coverage vary, but the ancient woodland inventory identifies approximately 340,000 hectares of woodland in England that is ancient. Nearly 200,000 hectares of that is semi-natural and 140,000 hectares is in plantations on ancient woodland sites. Subsequent estimates suggest that there are about 210,000 hectares of native woodland not on ancient woodland sites. Taken together, those three categories of woodland comprise just over half of England’s woodlands, at about 550,000 hectares.

We continue to work to restore our native and ancient woodlands on the public forest estate and many private woodland owners are motivated and incentivised to do likewise. We are committed to ensuring that our ancient woodlands are adequately protected and sustainably managed to provide a wide range of social, environmental and economic benefits to society. An example is the Government’s contribution to Grown in Britain, which includes helping owners of small woodland businesses who develop products such as high-end wood furniture from woodlands managed to the UK forestry standard. The value to society of the 40 million recreational visits to forests and woodlands is put at about £484 million per year; 65% of the population visited English woodland in 2013.

We are all aware, however, that there are many competing demands on our resources. We are a small island, more densely populated than India, and there are competing pressures on how we use the land that is our most precious resource. We have ambitions to increase woodland cover and improve the quality of our woodland management, but we must be mindful that those ambitions sit alongside a need to increase food production, create renewable energy and capture carbon, while also maintaining the mosaic of habitats that our wildlife depends on, such as our ancient woodlands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane pointed out, we recognise that to compete globally we need to update and upgrade our ageing infrastructure, and foster development that enables our economic growth to be sustained.

We have, however, always made a special case for our ancient woodlands—and rightly so. That is why, as I said earlier, they are protected in the NPPF. The passage that deals with them states clearly and unambiguously that

“planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and…veteran trees…unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.

The position is very clear—there is protection—and I am not certain what more could be done; the Government certainly have no plans to undermine or change that position. However, I am aware that a number of hon. Members have made some suggestions about how things could be improved and I will return to those suggestions later.

We do not believe that we should simply look to protect our woodlands; we also want to invest in them. Sensitive management of our ancient woodlands can contribute to the challenges I have just mentioned—both capturing carbon and, through wood fuel, biomass-based renewable energy. Effective management can ensure protection against more subtle threats, such as shading of ancient woodland ground flora resulting from lack of management, in order to build resilience to climate change.

Our management continues to promote greater biological and structural diversity in England’s woodlands. In total, 75% of the public forest estate was identified in the Lawton review in 2010 as being critical to supporting the wildlife network and biodiversity in England. That is why the Government have invested more than £60 million in forestry during the past five years.

Private woodland owners continue to be motivated to bring unmanaged and under-managed woodlands back into management, reacting to demand-side initiatives such as Grown in Britain and the renewable heat incentive. Now, 58% of England’s woodlands are in active management, and to support our manifesto commitment we will continue to invest £31 million per annum during the new rural development programme for England, which will see a further 11 million trees planted during this Parliament.

As part of that commitment, we are working with the Woodland Trust to provide more opportunities for schoolchildren to plant, care for and learn about trees. That will give young children the chance to understand and connect with nature, and play a role in making their school grounds and local communities cleaner and greener, helping them to grow the ancient woodlands of the future.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes that point about education extremely eloquently, and it is important. Will these children be educated about the immense benefits of ancient woodlands in particular, because, as we have heard today, there is so much involved in them that children could learn from?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I certainly hope that schoolchildren learn about ancient woodlands because, as a number of hon. Members have said, those trees have seen major chapters of our history during their lifetime.

I will also point out that when it comes to the rural development programme, we are doing some direct work on ancient woodlands. More than 4,200 hectares of planted ancient woodland sites owned by the private sector were restored on ancient semi-natural woodlands between 2011 and 2014, and more than 6,500 hectares of plantations on ancient woodland sites have been worked on since April 2011 on the public forest estate.

I turn now to some of the points made by hon. Members in their contributions. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane talked about the importance of urban trees, and I agree. They are very important, and the Natural Capital Committee has noted that in its own report. It is also important to recognise that the NPPF covers both urban and rural areas, so the same protections apply whether trees are in rural or urban areas.

My hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members talked about databases. We are interested in databases, so I would be interested to see the evidence about how one defines a “threat”, if one is identifying trees that might be under threat. We also recognise that local planning authorities, which ultimately take these decisions, do not report or collate data on ancient woodlands. As far as we are aware, there is no reporting or collating of information, and the shadow Minister raised that issue, too. We are certainly happy to look at it.

Of course, we have the ancient woodland inventory, which was developed in the 1980s. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase pointed out, we also have the Tree Register, a registered charity that updates a register on notable trees. That is very important, providing information on the size and growth of trees, as well as details of historical, rare or unusually significant trees. It, too, makes an important contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane and others also mentioned sites of special scientific interest and asked whether there could be designations of ancient woodlands as “triple SIs”. As a number of Members have already noted, many of our ancient woodlands are already designated as SSSIs, and Natural England is constantly looking for additional areas that should be so designated. Its work at the moment includes looking at additional ancient woodlands to be designated as SSSIs.

One point to note is that although designating an area as an SSSI is a stronger form of protection, in that there is a statutory role for Natural England if there is to be any development on those sites, the test is still quite similar: if the benefits of development outweigh any damage they can be considered. The test itself is broadly the same, but I accept that the level of protection is higher.

My hon. Friend also talked about strengthening the presumption to “wholly exceptional” when development is considered. I know that the Government have considered the issue before; they have taken the view that that change is not necessary because the existing protections are adequate. Nevertheless, I take on board the points she has made today and I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will read a transcript of this debate. He may want to look further at the arguments that she has so forcefully made about that issue.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane that we should accept that although planting new trees is important, and we will plant 11 million new trees during the course of this Parliament, it does not fully mitigate the loss of trees. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) pointed out, even though we are doing lots of planting and mitigation work—that work is important, particularly when it comes to High Speed 2—it cannot replace our ancient woodlands, which are irreplaceable. I accept that.

I move on to the comments made by my right hon. Friend. I know that she has been a tireless campaigner on the issue of HS2 and has many deep concerns about its impact on her constituency. I am pleased that some of the woodlands that she mentioned, such as Mantles wood, have been protected as a result of the decision to put a tunnel underneath the woodlands rather than through them. However, she has made a point today about the areas of outstanding natural beauty sites and other sites affected by that tunnel. I will take her concerns back to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and we will raise those concerns with colleagues in other Departments, notably the Department for Transport, which is making these decisions. We will write to her with our feedback on that process.

[Mrs Gillan]

The Minister may not be the woodland Minister, but given the position that he occupies in the Department, I am very grateful that he will discuss that matter with his colleague and take it up with the DFT. It is not as if I am asking for the world; I am just asking to save a little bit of it, which is so important.

[George Eustice]

I am sure—and it is the little bit of it in my right hon. Friend’s constituency that is especially important, as all hon. Members will understand all too well. Of course, my right hon. Friend will be aware that a hybrid Bill is also going through Parliament at the moment in a very long-drawn-out process, as is often the case with such Bills. A number of these matters will be considered by that Bill Committee.

On HS2, I will summarise by saying that the company has stated that it will plant 7 million trees, as a mixture of landscaping and screening and to compensate for the loss of some trees. There has also been a survey. Natural England reviewed the ancient woodland inventory last spring and determined that 16 woodland sites along the phase 1 route of the proposed rail scheme should be added to the inventory. Although they are small sites—there are 10 woods of less than 2 hectares—they have been added to the inventory in order to address some of the concerns that exist. That is a good example of where the Government continue to look sensitively and carefully at these issues, to make sure that we get a decision right.

Finally, a number of hon. Members mentioned the issue of pests and disease, which is a challenge we take very seriously. The Animal and Plant Health Agency monitors diseases such as ash dieback, or chalara, which is of particular concern at the moment. It is true that older trees can often survive infection for a number of years; in some cases older trees are more resilient to disease, particularly when it comes to diseases such as ash dieback.

Fighting disease is a very important part of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does. We have committed more than £21 million to tree health research, which includes £3.5 million for studies that are being undertaken to identify what can make trees tolerant to ash dieback, for instance.

In conclusion, we are continually striving to improve things in this area, but we acknowledge that this issue is complex. The challenge for us today is totally different from the challenges of the 1920s. That is why we need to balance forestry interests with our global responsibilities and our wider needs on UK land use. The Government consider that the existing protection for ancient woodland in the NPPF is strong and is protecting our ancient woodlands and veteran trees, but as I said earlier, Members have made some powerful points today. I am sure that my colleague, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will read the transcript of the debate carefully, and I will relay some of the concerns expressed and proposals made in that spirit.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I understand that the opening 28 minutes by the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) were brilliant, and I am sure her closing two minutes will be equally excellent.