Agriculture Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

Well, they are similar. Neither has to have a dispute resolution process. Some do and some do not. We have a number of concordats in the fisheries sphere. A concordat tends to be slightly more formal than an MOU, which is a looser agreement.

Let me turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. On subsection (1) of the new clause, we envisage concordats and MOUs pulling Ministers together in the way that I have described. On subsection (2)(d), as I said, we already have processes for managing cross-border cases. On subsection (3), we already have, as I said, the devolution settlement. On subsection (3)(b), about maintaining,

“as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies”

to that which we have in the EU, that is not saying very much—we do not have a lot of flexibility, to be honest, and we would like to give more.

One of my most memorable experiences in DEFRA has been being informed of a dispute that the Welsh Government were having with the EU about ear tags. In Wales, where there are hedges, ear tags can sometimes be pulled off by the brambles in a hedge, so animals used to have one small tag—a metal clip tag—and one larger tag that could be read, but the EU said that that was not good enough and the two tags had to be the same size, so that there were two dangling tags. The matter ended up going to court, and we had to get involved to support the Welsh Government in arguing their case. That is the kind of flexibility that we have in the EU—not very much. We would like to have far more.

My final point is this. Yesterday I was in Cardiff: the occasion was a joint ministerial meeting with the DEFRA Ministers. The meeting was hosted by Lesley Griffiths of the Welsh Government. Lesley put forward a proposal, which we agreed yesterday, that we should put that group of, in effect, the Agriculture and DEFRA Ministers on to a more formal footing, with clear terms of reference established, so that it could manage the EU exit process and possibly have a role thereafter, but also work up a memorandum of understanding about how we approach some of these issues together. Therefore, in addition to the Joint Ministerial Committee process, which itself is being reviewed to try to iron out some of the difficulties and make it more effective, we have a memorandum of understanding under development through the meeting that has been convened with the DEFRA Ministers. As I said, I was in Cardiff discussing that only yesterday.

[Chris Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for updating us. May I ask which organisation will take precedence?

[George Eustice]

Always, in a memorandum of understanding or concordat, we are in effect talking about issues that are devolved. They are issues that are technically devolved but on which we all recognise that there is sense in having common frameworks, so we voluntarily come back together for a concordat—to reach an agreement. We do that already in the veterinary sphere, for instance, in agriculture. There is a veterinary concordat whereby all parts of GB sign up to an Animal and Plant Health Agency surveillance programme, and it works very well, so we have demonstrated that we can do this. But ultimately these are areas of policy that are devolved and devolved provisions of the Bill.

Agriculture Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Committee Debate: 14th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

There will definitely be a Bill dealing with animal sentience and sentencing. As I speak, we are considering where we might be able to fit those particular provisions into future legislation.

The hon. Lady asked whether there is a division between DEFRA and the Treasury. There is not. Within Government there are discussions, obviously, and then there is a consensus and an agreement. She kindly offered to protect the Secretary of State through the proposed new clause, but I can assure her that the Secretary of State needs no protecting; he is very good at making his case within Government. We already have some statutory targets through international agreements in areas such as climate change, but we believe that environmental targets and objectives should be picked up through the 25-year environment plan—there were some objectives in that plan—and are fundamentally a matter for the environment Bill. I am sure that she will be very engaged in discussions about that Bill when it comes forward.

I turn to new clause 19, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud, which concerns the importance of advice and guidance. The Government agree with him about the importance of advice and guidance, particularly as we roll out a new scheme, but clause 1 is absolutely clear that we can already pay for advice and guidance. Subsection (1) of that clause states:

“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance for or in connection with any of the following”.

The term “in connection with” enables us to make financial assistance available to support advice, and I want to spend a little bit of time explaining what the Government intend to do in this area.

As I touched on during an earlier debate on other clauses, we envision the new environmental land management scheme as effectively a covenant or contract between individual farmers and the Government. We intend to support a system in which farmers would be able to receive advice on the design of an environmental land management contract. That advice might come from an agronomist accredited by a UCAS Government scheme or from one of our employees from Natural England, or a third-party organisation like the Wildlife Trust might develop a cohort of people who could provide that advice. Having worked with the farmer, visited the farm, walked to the farm and not got too obsessed by maps, form-filling and all the rest of it, they can sit around the table with the farmer, help them put together the agreement, and then sign it off with the presumption that it will be supported and paid for.

We want to get back to a system in which there is much more human interaction, and in which trusted agronomists, trusted advisers who are accredited by the Government, and Government officers from agencies such as Natural England work directly with farmers. We do not want everyone to get bogged down in paperwork, form-filling, mapping and having to spend hours on a helpline, only to find that nobody can help them with their query. We have got a great opportunity to redesign the system.

The hon. Member for Stroud said that, as this is a new scheme, there will potentially be challenges in getting farmers used to it. I understand his point, but until a couple of years ago about 70% of farmers were in either an entry-level stewardship or a higher-level stewardship scheme, so by and large they are very familiar with these types of agri-environment schemes. They have run similar schemes previously, so I think they will be able to pick up these schemes and adapt to them.

The other thing we are doing is having a seven-year transition in which we gradually wind down the single farm payment. During that time we will be piloting the new system. That gives us plenty of time to familiarise farmers with the new system, and to perfect the system, so that when we roll it out fully we do not have problems along the way, and to ensure that we have the capacity to give advice in the area to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.

The other point I want to address is about the holistic advice to farmers. We have been looking at projects run by a number of organisations, including the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which gives a lot of technical advice and has a network of what it calls monitor farms so that it can share good practice and knowledge transfer, and the Prince’s Countryside Fund, which runs very good peer-to-peer support groups to help farmers with their business management and help them address change. It has had some success with that. We are keen to learn from that as we roll out support for farmers. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, farming can be a very lonely business. I grew up in a farming community, so I am familiar with the issues. There has always been the great tragedy of high levels of suicide in agriculture—usually about 50 a year. That figure has been fairly constant for a number of decades. We want to ensure that, as we go through this period of change, we give farmers all the support we can to help them adjust and move to a new system.

New clause 27 is all about county farms, about which the hon. Member for Stroud and I share a passion. This is the first time today I have been able to mention the 1947 Act. As he is aware, sections 47 onwards and part 4 of the Act established county farms and the right of local authorities to buy them. The new clause looks familiar because, although we often say that this is the first Agriculture Bill since 1947, that is not quite true. It is the first major Agriculture Bill since 1947, but of course there was the Agriculture Act 1970, which rolled forward some of the provisions from the 1947 Act and changed others. It created the requirement for local authorities to submit a plan to the Department and seek our agreement for any consolidation and reorganisation. That was a time-limited power, and I understand that new clause 27 is effectively attempting to replicate it. Earlier this year we laid before Parliament—I have to sign these off every year—the 67th annual smallholdings report, under section 5 of the 1970 Act, so there are still some requirements under that Act.

I want to explain what we intend to do about county farms. My view is that we should create a financial incentive for local authorities to invest in and commit to their county farms in the long term. The idea that I have in mind is to create, under clause 1(2), a fund for investment in county farms that is open to local authorities, subject to their submitting to us a clear plan demonstrating their long-term commitment to their county farm estate. I would like to see more emphasis placed on turning county farms into what might be called incubator holdings, to genuinely support new entrants. At the moment the problem is that once people get on to a county farm, they often get stuck there for 20 or 30 years and do not have the ability to progress.

Our idea is to look at what we can learn from other parts of the economy where there are, for instance, innovation centres offering mentoring for setting up new businesses; where the local enterprise partnership might be involved, working with the local authority to draw down additional funding; where it might be made a requirement for local authorities to have partnership agreements with private estates, so that they have farms to move farmers on to after five years; and where we might also support the development of peri-urban farms on other parts of local authority land.

[Chris Davies]

I am pleased to hear the Minister’s proposals. Can he confirm that they will apply UK-wide and not just to England?

[George Eustice]

The scheme would be for England only, for the reasons I have outlined.

I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud understands that, rather than drafting a clause that requires that to be done, I believe that we can deliver the outcome we seek simply by establishing a fund to help local authorities invest in a county farm estate, subject to meeting conditions that demonstrate their long-term commitment to the scheme.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Thursday 15th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I am sure that there is a good story in there somewhere about a Welsh MP, an English MP and a Scottish MP, but we shall not go down that route at this moment. [Interruption.] It is after lunch, after all.

I am delighted to support the amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow and for Gordon have made very convincing cases, and I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Stroud also making a convincing case. Farming, as we all know, is a long-term measure, and there are many farmers among Conservative Members. We have not just visited a farm on the recommendation of the NFU; we are involved in farming on a daily basis. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is from a farming family, will be well aware of the need for long-term funding, which is important in farming for breeding and planting.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on forestry, and long-term funding is vital for the future of the forestry sector and the wood industry. With softwood, the period from planting to profit is probably 40 years. With hardwood, it is 80 to 100 years. It is very important that schemes are in place to ensure the correct funding. I am delighted to support the amendment and I am sure and very much hope that the Government will look on it positively.

[George Eustice]

Like my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow, for Gordon and for Brecon and Radnorshire, I understand that this is a critical issue. I agree with the sentiment that we can put into the Bill all the powers we like and come up with all the creative policy we like, but that they will not mean anything without money to underpin them.

For reasons that the Committee will understand, I will not support the amendment. Before I come on to that point, however, it is important to recognise what we have already done to acknowledge the importance of clarity on funding. At the last general election, we made a commitment to keep the total cash spent on agriculture at the same level for the duration of this Parliament until 2022. That breached and went beyond a Treasury spending review period, but the Conservative party took the decision that it was right and proper to prejudge the spending review process so that we could give clarity and certainty to farmers.

The challenge, as I understand it, is that the scheme is currently funded in a roundabout way by our sending money to Brussels and then getting it back. The concern that some farmers will have is whether the Government will be willing to support the scheme. My view is that the approximately £3 billion that we currently spend every year on agriculture and the farmed environment is relatively modest in the context of other areas of Government spending. Some Departments—perhaps including a Department that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is familiar with—regularly accidentally overshoot their national budget. Given what it delivers for the farmed environment that covers 70% of our land, for habitats, for water and air quality, and for our important environmental objectives, £3 billion is a fairly modest sum.

As the policy returns home and we take back control, there will be a responsibility on Parliament—and on political parties in their manifestos—to demonstrate their commitment to our farmed environment and wildlife. We know that wildlife organisations have huge memberships: the RSPB and the Wildlife Trust each have between 1.7 million and 2 million members. We know that the British public are passionate about their countryside, wildlife and environment and want us to give them due priority and support.

We have therefore not only committed to keeping the cash total the same until 2022 but made a manifesto commitment to implement and fund a new environmental land management scheme after that. We have not described the total quantum of funding after 2022, but there is an absolute commitment for there to be a funded policy. We have also made it clear that agreements entered into by the end of 2022 under the existing pillar 2 schemes—some of which will run for a decade—will all be funded for the duration of their terms. I believe that we have done a lot in the area already.

As a former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow knows that in the long term these matters are ultimately dealt with through the spending review process. A spending review process is under way, and we expect it to conclude next year. By their very nature, spending reviews are multi-annual; they tend to set a financial envelope within a period such as five years. Departments also have other processes, such as single departmental plans and Supply estimates applied at departmental level, so that we have some continuity and multi-annual understanding in our approach to funding, rather than a stop-go process from year to year.

Finally, our new environmental land management scheme is predominantly designed around multi-annual agreements. There will not simply be one-off yearly payments; we envisage farmers entering into an agreement for three, five or possibly 10 years. It is implicit in the design that we have outlined for the scheme that a multi-annual understanding of funding will be needed.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that I share his view that this matter is important and that I view the current spending on agriculture and the farmed environment as a relatively modest sum of money. We could deploy it far more effectively to achieve far more, but the spending review process is the right place to identify funding post 2022. I am sure that he and other colleagues will be making representations to the Chancellor and the Treasury on this matter.

Agriculture Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

Yes, I can. We discussed this when we touched on clause 1, which is about the way in which we will support people. We heard representations from people engaged in small projects, such as agroecology projects, about whether they could have support. They are often not entitled to support under existing schemes, but I absolutely said that clause 1 will enable us to support those. Indeed, this is an area that we are looking at closely. Clause 1(2) gives us the power to award grants to some of those smaller businesses, including new entrants.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, the Minister mentioned that the schemes and their financing will continue. Can he reassure me and colleagues from across the various borders that the devolved nations will also continue to have the money over the period of the schemes?

[George Eustice]

Yes. The devolved nations have that retained EU law through the EU withdrawal Act. We have discussed previously that Scotland requires some kind of clause to be able to continue to make payments after we leave the European Union, but that is relatively easy to remedy. A combination of this Bill and the EU withdrawal Act gives us the power right across the UK to honour all those commitments that have been entered into.

Returning to clause 11, the hon. Member for Darlington asked whether subsection (3) is an exhaustive list or whether we can add to it. It is not exhaustive but it covers the bulk of the regulations. I will explain why we drafted it in that way. The regulations listed under subsection (3) are effectively all the current in-force rural development regulations. However, we have kept open the option to broaden the list slightly because we have some legacy schemes—older agreements under previous countryside stewardship or productivity EU schemes that are no longer technically in force—and we might still want the ability to modify and tweak them. The best way to describe it is to say that the list is not exhaustive, but is close to being exhaustive. It covers all the regulations currently in force, but we need just a slight amount of room to capture the previous legacy schemes that are no longer in force.

Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

The regulations that we can make under part 3 of schedule 1 give us the power to add additional things. Although I am Agriculture Minister, I do not cover forestry and timber, so I will need to discuss that with my ministerial colleagues. It is certainly an option and the provision is there to enable us to add products.

[Chris Davies]

There are concerns on this side of the House—as well as on the Opposition Benches—about the forestry and timber industry. I doubly emphasise the need for the Minister to look at that.

[George Eustice]

I feel that this will be one of those unexpected issues that returns on Report. I will undertake in the meantime to talk to my ministerial colleagues responsible for the forestry industry.

Amendment 65 is a similar provision to that which we discussed in an earlier debate on producer organisations. It seeks to ensure that we could make measures in that area only with the consent of Scottish Ministers. We have adopted that approach because it is a competition matter that deals with the ability to have contractual changes linked directly to competition law—that is why it is a reserved matter. We are not doing anything new in that regard. The current Groceries Code Adjudicator is a UK-wide body; it operates UK-wide and the legislation that underpins it is UK-wide. The EU milk package is an example of a contractual fair-dealing provision under EU law. It applies UK-wide and can only be switched on and implemented on a UK basis. It is therefore a well-established fact that such issues, which pertain directly to competition law, are a reserved matter to be handled by the UK Government. That is why we do not accept that the provisions are necessary or acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As I said, the GCA already has the powers to receive complaints anonymously and to investigate, where she has reason to suspect a breach of the code. That is already in place.

My point is not that this is not a legitimate issue—of course, as I said, the regulations can provide for anonymity—but that at some time we need people to have the confidence and courage to say, “I will not agree with that. It is against the code—you know it’s against the statutory code—and you shouldn’t be asking me to do it.” For such things to work properly, we need the farmers and sellers also to hold people to what is a legal requirement. They can play their part and, where they are willing to do so, that can make all the difference.

Amendment 87 is similar—it is about being able to launch investigations when there are reasonable grounds to suspect non-compliance, rather than when there is a complaint. Again, we believe that we can provide for that. It is important to note that whatever is set out as a legal requirement in clause 25(3) will be a legal requirement whether or not there is a complaint. Subsection (5) deals predominantly with complaints and how they are handled, we do not envisage the body as simply a complaints-handling one; we see it as an enforcement body that will enforce all the legal requirements introduced under the Bill, specifically clause 25. It will not only handle complaints and pass them on.

[Chris Davies]

Conservative Members, too, have concerns about the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Farmers and suppliers tell me regularly that the GCA’s teeth are not sharp enough. Will the Minister reassure me, as he has the Opposition, that there are provisions not only in the Bill but in other places where the powers are strong enough, and that if we need to increase the powers there is a mechanism to do so?

[George Eustice]

The clause provides quite strong powers, including those to impose penalties for non-compliance on the first purchaser of agricultural products. If such a first purchaser happens to be a major retailer— perhaps one not currently covered by the groceries code, because it is below a certain threshold—it will be covered by the Bill. By addressing the problem from both ends of the telescope, we have a workable solution that means we can really deliver for the interests of farmers while not losing the successes of the Groceries Code Adjudicator model.

Having given that reassurance that the issues raised by the hon. Member for Stroud in amendments 86 and 87 can already be addressed through regulations under subsection (5), I hope that he will accept it and withdraw his amendments.

Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Thursday 1st November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

The power to create new offences is in the Welsh schedule. It is a decision for the Welsh Government whether they wish to change that as the Bill progresses. That is clearly a decision for them, and I will not give any indication about what they might do.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I find it quite strange to be in great sympathy with the hon. Member for Stroud, but, after that direct answer from the Minister, which I thank him for, I urge him to have another look at the clause. We look forward to discussing it on Report. We have concerns.

[George Eustice]

I very much look forward to discussing the issue further on Report. As I said, in considering the mood and sentiment of the Committee, I undertake further to discuss the issue with Government colleagues and to report back to the House on Report. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Stroud will agree to withdraw his amendment and keep his powder dry for another day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

There are many farmers in Herefordshire and Shropshire who will own land 30, 40 or 50 miles into Wales, so does Minister foresee any difficulty with decoupling in cross-border schemes if both devolved areas end up with different schemes?

[George Eustice]

We have had a comprehensive debate, and I want to pick up on some of the points that were made.

The Opposition’s amendment 107 is about making provisions for determining the status of those persons who have received de-linked payments where the agricultural transition period has been extended. That links to the point that I addressed earlier. We are setting a clear course here, and if a decision is made under clause 7 to de-link all payments, as far as we are concerned there will be no turning back at that point. It will be possible, under subsection (1)(a), to continue with the basic payment scheme and make a decision to extend, but if at a later stage of the transition period a decision is taken to de-link all payments, from our point of view it is not possible at that point to turn back, nor would we want to do so. If at that point we decided that we still wanted an old-style subsidy system, the right thing to do would be to pass new primary legislation because that would be a major departure from what we envisage in the Bill.

I was asked about de-linking and about what will happen at the end and whether we will put conditions on what people can spend the payment on. During the transition, we envisage there being a progressive, year-on-year phasing down of the BPS payment. Alongside that, we will roll out new grants for such things as productivity, and we will roll out the new environmental land management scheme.

There is already a huge amount of bureaucracy, inspection and tedious form filling behind the BPS payment. If in year three, four or five the BPS payment is considerably smaller than it is now, farmers will rightly say, “Isn’t this a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Our BPS payment is much smaller, yet we still have this extraordinary inspection regime, we still have to employ agents to fill out all the forms, and we still have to have someone from the Rural Payments Agency come to walk our fields and inspect everything.” At that point, people will rightly ask whether the enforcement architecture surrounding the BPS payment fits the size of the payment, given that it is necessarily being phased out.

That is why our view is that if we de-link the payment we will not attempt to put conditions on that, because it will be a diminishing sum of money anyway towards the latter part of transition. We have not decided when to de-link. That might come later; it could be at the beginning—that is provided for. We would consult on that, but my expectation is that for a period we would phase down the existing BPS payment. A point would then come when, frankly, having all the architecture that we have now to enforce it would cease to be justifiable, and simply de-linking to get the system closed down would be the right thing to do.

The answer to the Landworkers Alliance, the members of which generally complain to me that they are ineligible for the BPS payment at the moment anyway, is that in so far as some of them might be eligible, if they took a de-linked payment they would be able to spend it on anything they wanted, as would any other farm.

A slightly separate provision—although it is linked, and they overlap in some respects—is clause 7(7), which creates a parallel power for us effectively to do what I described earlier: make a rolled-up payment of several years to a farmer who might be deciding to leave the land. We may exercise that whether or not we had de-linked. It will be open to us to run a scheme basically to make an exit payment to farmers, with several years rolled up in one, even if we are proceeding on the basis of clause 7(1)(a)—that is the phase-down. It will also be open to us to do it under subsection (1)(b), but if we were using subsection (1)(b) towards the end of the process to free everyone from the need to have their payment linked to the land, it might be less attractive at that point as an exit package.

Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Thursday 25th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Davies]

Q I represent a constituency right on the border of England and Wales, and many of my farmers have land on both sides of the border. Currently, they have to abide by what one could say are two slightly different regimes. Mr Hall, regarding the farmers that you represent on the Scottish side of the border that also have land in England, so that they farm both sides, do you think the Scottish Government’s approach to this Bill has given them extra concern and worry?

Jonnie Hall: We do have members who farm in different parts of the United Kingdom under the same business and it has always been something of a challenge in terms of which Administration deals with which component—whether it is land inspections, the payment claims and so on. I suspect that the lack of a publicly clear strategy from the Scottish Government poses some doubt and questions in the minds of those farmers who straddle borders, but equally it probably poses a lot of uncertainty for any farmer in Scotland, not just those who straddle the border.

One thing that will be vital—it goes back to common regulation—is that when you have cross-border farmers, you have to apply the same regulatory approach in terms of pesticide use, animal traceability issues, food hygiene, feed rules and all the rest of it across the United Kingdom in a uniform fashion. That goes back to the statement that all farming unions have always agreed: we need a commonly agreed regulatory framework. We are playing to the same rulebook, but we are not necessarily supporting farmers in the same way; the support requirements for a hill farmer in Argyll are different from those of someone growing fruit and veg in Lincolnshire.

[George Eustice]

Q I want to come back to part 7 and the WTO clause, which I know you are concerned about—I think unnecessarily so, for reasons I will explain. Mr Burgess, who is currently responsible for ensuring that we abide by WTO rules and obligations, and who is responsible for reporting to the WTO to demonstrate that?

George Burgess: In terms of observing and implementing those regulations, it is all of the Administrations within the United Kingdom. That is a well-established legal fact. The Scottish Government understand that, within their areas of responsibility, they must ensure that their actions are compliant. In terms of reporting into the international field, there are mechanisms through the European Union and the Commission. Such obligations are common in many international mechanisms, some of which the United Kingdom is a signatory to, and it is well established that, where necessary, the devolved Administrations provide information, often through a central contact point within the United Kingdom Government, as part of our international obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I am not aware there is a precedent anywhere else in the world of giving a country access to your waters—to your own resources—in return for trade agreements. That is just not the way it works. There will be a discussion and an agreement on the management of shared fisheries stocks, and we are clear in our White Paper that we will manage our own exclusive economic zone and control access to it. Then there is a separate discussion to be had on trade, and the EU wants access to the UK market, too.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to promote the planting of trees.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend reassure upland food-producing family farmers that they have a future under his Department’s plans?

[George Eustice]

Yes I can, and I have had meetings with the Uplands Alliance, which is very excited by the approach set out in our consultation. Our uplands deliver many public goods and environmental benefits, and under our new policy we will be rewarding those.

Sale of Puppies

Debate between George Eustice and Chris Davies

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Local authorities are already required to carry out such activity. They already have animal welfare departments and dog wardens, and they already issue licensing conditions for a range of things. They already have trading standards departments. I think I have addressed that point, so I will move on, because other important issues have been raised.

[Chris Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his welcome proposals. One thing that we have not tackled so far is illegal imports. Supply does not equal demand in this country, because people want more puppies and dogs than the breeders in this country can supply. How do the Government plan to address that real problem? As we have heard, puppies often travel in difficult conditions and die within a few weeks of being in this country.

[George Eustice]

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I intend to return to that issue.

I conclude on the licensing point by thanking the many stakeholder organisations and animal welfare groups that have already contributed to our contribution and the formulation of these draft regulations. The hon. Member for Islwyn raised a point about the sale of puppies under eight weeks old, and he said that the first dog he had was sold at two and a half weeks. A couple of things are being done. First, the microchipping regulations that were introduced two years ago already require that no dog can be sold until it has been microchipped, and it is unlawful to microchip a dog until it is eight weeks old. In the normal course of events, it is already the case that no dog under the age of eight weeks can be sold.

Again, there is some ambiguity under the 1951 Act, and some people have identified the fact that a small number of pet shops might have been able to sell dogs under eight weeks old. We will put the situation beyond doubt in the regulations by making it clear that no puppy below that age can be sold.

I want to move on to maximum sentences for animal cruelty as that is another important area in which we have recently made some announcements. The issue has been raised a number of times, including in private Members’ Bills promoted by several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). The Government have made it clear that we will increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence needs to be increased for the most horrific acts, such as deliberate, calculating and sadistic behaviour. The offences for which that would apply could include causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and holding organised animal fights. The existing six-month limit does not allow judges to pass the most appropriate sentence in such circumstances. We want to send a clear message that animal cruelty is not acceptable in our society, and a Bill to effect the necessary changes to the Animal Welfare Act will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I turn now to the question of a ban on the third-party sale of puppies. This issue is often raised and the hon. Member for Islwyn, to be fair, rightly pointed out the difficulty that enforcing such a ban might involve. We do not believe that a ban on third-party sellers is necessary, and that view is shared by many stakeholders. We believe that a better approach is to aim for more robust licensing of pet sellers, as well as continued encouragement that people source dogs from reputable breeders and see any puppy interact with its mother, and consider a rescue or re-homed dog first, alongside consumer pressure to drive down the sales of dogs from third parties such as pet shops. The evidence shows that that is already happening, with as few as 4% of pet shops now licensed to sell dogs. That figure is always declining, and the reality is that even fewer shops actually do so.

We want to drive up animal welfare standards rather than introduce bans that are difficult to enforce. That is why the new regulations will set statutory minimum welfare standards for all commercial pet sellers that the local authority must apply when considering whether to issue a licence. There will also be an opportunity to apply higher standards, with pet sellers and dog breeders able to earn recognition so that the better performers have a longer licence, with fewer inspections and a lower fee. We are developing a star system similar to that which applies to food hygiene, and that will be backed up by statutory guidance. The use of a risk-based assessment of operators and an emphasis on cost recovery will enable local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities and target enforcement on the poorer performers. It will also assist the public to make an informed choice when choosing a pet provider.

I turn now to the issue of online sales. I particularly wish to point out to hon. Members that the Department established the Pet Advertising Advisory Group some years ago. DEFRA has already published guidance on buying a pet and has worked closely with PAAG to drive up standards for online advertisements. It is important that we give credit where it is due, so I should like to take this opportunity to praise PAAG’s work, which has resulted in six of the largest online sites signing up to agreed minimum standards for sites that advertise pet animals for sale. The types of measures that have been introduced include: a requirement that all adverts display the age of the animal advertised, with no pet advertised for transfer to a new owner before it is weaned and no longer dependent on its parents; a permanent ban on vendors on a “three strikes and you’re out” basis, so that those who attempt to post illegal adverts can be blocked indefinitely from advertising on any of these sites; and steps to ensure that every “view item” page includes prominent links to PAAG’s advice on buying and selling a pet, which can ensure that someone who is searching for a dog or any other pet is targeted with informative emails to tell them what they need to know so that they will be able to care for that pet. The standards are being applied by half a dozen or so sites, including the main ones. People who are looking online should be advised to keep to those sites that have signed up to PAAG’s minimum standards.