Badgers and Bovine TB

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I will try to be reasonably brief. I thank the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) for securing this debate. She pointed out that she comes from the city and is a townie, and although we work well together on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I feel that she may be wrong on this issue. I welcome the chance to participate in the debate, however, and I welcome the Minister being here. Along with the Secretary of State, he has been brave in moving this issue forward. We have had problems with TB for 60 years or more. We began to get to grips with it in the late ‘60s, but as the badger population increased, so did TB, and we have had a huge problem ever since.

We are talking about disease control because we have got to stamp out TB, which exists not only in cattle and badgers but in a lot of other wildlife. Over 100 cats have suffered from it, and there is much to do to control the disease. In an ideal world we would vaccinate the badgers, but we are without an oral vaccine and we know the practicalities of such a vaccination programme—we simply would not catch them.

A vaccine for cattle is not too far away, but we must ask how long it could take and whether we will get Europe to agree to it. There was a huge debate over foot and mouth disease and whether vaccinating cattle should be allowed, and we would have the same problem with a vaccine for TB. We do not yet have an effective vaccination, and throughout Devon, Cornwall and the whole of the west country, farmers have suffered year after year from the presence of this disease. Many of the herds involved have been restricted for two, three, four, five or more years, and during that time farmers have lost a lot of their highly bred—and irreplaceable—pedigree cattle. All the while, we have done nothing to get rid of the reservoir of disease in the fields.

We test our cattle regularly, and bring them in for the winter although they are tested throughout the year. We take out the infected cattle, but then we put them back into the fields—quite rightly; the public would be horrified if we kept our cattle penned in all year round—where they get reinfected by infected badgers and other wildlife. The disease then affects more healthy cattle, and yet more are taken out. Such a situation cannot go on. The previous Government prevaricated and did nothing about it, but this Government have bitten the bullet.

We must be convinced about the cull that we suggest. It is proposed in limited areas and is likely to take place in certain hot spots. One need only look at a map such as the one I am holding to see where those hot spots exist: mainly in the west country and Wales. It was asked how many farmers will sign up to the policy, but I assure hon. Members that in TB hot spots where farmers have been suffering with the disease for years, there will be no problem in signing up to a proper cull. We are talking about controlled shooting, not free shooting, and that must be carried out by people who are properly licensed and who use proper weapons. I am hugely keen on animal welfare.

[Andrew Miller]

Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that in an article from 17 September 2010, the Minister said,

“my view is that free shooting would, in most cases, be by far the most effective option.”

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman will find that the issue has been looked at again, and that controlled shooting is the idea being proposed. We will train people to take part in that, so that it can be done humanely. That is absolutely vital. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the comments of Lord Krebs after his trials, but many people dispute whether those trials were accurate. I believe that reducing the infected badger population will reduce the incidence of TB in cattle. There are no two ways about that; we must tackle the issue.

I will not repeat what has already been said, but I have a final point about cattle valuation. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) spoke earlier of the problem of pedigree cattle being taken out of England that are under tabular valuation. Those over 36 months old receive less compensation than non-pedigree cattle, and many farmers in Devon have to go to markets in Somerset and compete with Welsh farmers who have received huge amounts of compensation. It is necessary to get the valuations right.

I very much support what Ministers are doing. For too long, we have wrung our hands on this issue. We must take action, and take action now.

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Flood and Water Management

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for initiating this important debate. It is great to see the Minister here. I echo the words said about what a great job he is doing. His practical background helps in such matters.

I will make some general points. First, I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), and I reiterate that the west country has 3% of the population and 30% of the beaches. We also have an elderly population whose incomes are often fixed. High water charges are an issue for them, whereas in many parts of the country, water bills do not represent such a major percentage of income as in the south-west.

South West Water does a good job, but will the Minister consider more competition among water companies? My constituency borders Wessex, and Wessex Water customers pay a good deal less for their water than customers of South West Water. Is he considering it? I know that the Scottish model means that there is only one water company, but there are five retailers who buy wholesale from Scottish Water, resulting in competition, not among householders but among businesses. That could affect even bed and breakfast establishments. Would some competition not ensure that water companies deliver at competitive rates? Ultimately, we must secure value for money for our consumers. Also, I know that he has ruled out a national levy, but 3% of the population pay for 30% of the beaches. It should be shared around. I welcome the Government money offered by the Chancellor, and I look forward to what the Minister can do to alleviate the problems with water charges.

Lots of villages in my constituency have flooded, particularly Feniton. I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and others. The village includes lots of bungalows, and elderly people were stranded in them and had to be rescued from their lofts. That is an absolutely terrifying experience, and there is a social side to it as well as a cost.

Turning to costs, Labour Members made great play of how much this Government have had to cut flood defence money, but it is no good for them to say that when they spent all the money and left us with a huge deficit. We must make the money go further. I make a plea to the Minister—I know that he is already doing this—to ensure that the Environment Agency works with landowners and others to come up with schemes that are not expensive or elaborate but do the job. There are a lot of practical things that we could do to make the money go further. Insurance companies that insure properties in flood risk areas charge the owners huge premiums. Is there any way—I do not know whether it is possible—to tap into some of those resources? We must think outside the box. Other hon. Members have asked how much water companies can contribute in future. Only taxpayers’ money is involved, but we are borrowing so much money just to pay the interest on our deficit that we know that huge sums will not be available.

Perhaps I ought to declare an interest on the matter of managed retreat. I am not a great admirer of it. The Netherlands has been mentioned. If the Dutch practised managed retreat from the sea, they would retreat from their country. The world’s population is growing, and we are going to have to feed that population. Is it right to retreat from land and let the sea come in? People often do not realise the difference between freshwater and seawater flooding. Freshwater flooding does some damage to the land, but it recovers quickly and grass and crops can still be grown on it. Seawater flooding destroys the land so future generations cannot produce food on it.

Working with the Environment Agency and with farmers, we could find ways to save a lot of money. Protection is in place, but with the sea rising, we might need to raise sea walls. We could do so using systems involving earth banks, perhaps, rather than elaborate banks. I urge the Minister to consider it. We live in an age when people are concerned about flooding and their homes, but I repeat that we must also get the best value for money. I know that the Minister is considering ways to do so. I welcome the chance to speak in this debate to present the worries that people have.

On a final point—my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned this—although the Environment Agency has got better, we use our rivers for too many things. We are inclined to say that they are great for conservation. They are, and we want to keep water levels high, but in doing so, we let rivers and tributaries silt up. Somerset, for instance, has the Rivers Tone and Parrett. At Burrowbridge, the river is virtually completely silted up. One of these days it will rain and rain, and Taunton and Bridgwater will flood, because that water will not be able to get out to sea in time. It is good to keep water penned at conservation levels during the summer, but let us dredge those rivers properly so that the water can get out to sea. It is not hugely expensive, but it is a matter of foresight.

Culverts, ditches and other water channels have been mentioned. Again, I declare an interest, as I farm in an area that has such features. Internal drainage boards are good at managing things, and I know that the Minister is considering how they can do more. If we rethink how we drain our water, we will not have so much flooding. I agree again with my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury: if it rains and rains, we will have floods, but not if we prepare the proper drainage channels. That is what they were designed for, but at the moment, many towns, such as Taunton, have narrow pinch points where the water comes through the town. It all looks beautiful; the only thing is that if a lot of water must go through the town, it will not go through a smaller channel.

All those things should be considered, but I know that with a Minister of the calibre and experience that we have here, we will have no problem. I welcome the chance to raise these issues.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has been typically forthright and diligent in producing an important and thorough report. This is a crucial discussion, and one of fundamental importance to many aspects of communities throughout the country and to our country’s social, environmental and economic future. I pay tribute to the Chair and other Committee members for their work in producing the report.

The report provides the basis for a great deal of further work by both Parliament and Government. I suspect that important as the report is, this is not the last time that the Committee will return to the issue in such detail. I also suspect that we will have to wait for the long-delayed water White Paper, which is due to be published in December, before we can see comprehensively what the Government intend to do in response to the issues raised by the Committee. I appreciate that the Minister has plenty of questions to answer, so I will be as brief as possible. My first question is this: can he give us a categorical assurance that the White Paper will be published in December this year, and that it has not slipped any further?

The report raises a series of vital issues requiring rapid policy responses beginning with flood management, particularly flood insurance, which many Members have mentioned. Changes to flood insurance for homes and businesses will take effect in July 2013, bringing to an end the statement of principles agreed between the last Government and the Association of British Insurers, acting on behalf of the insurance industry, in 2008. The statement of principles placed clear obligations on Government and industry alike, the most important being the maintenance of investment by Government in flood defences. Following the change of Government, as has been discussed, that has not happened—flood defence spending has been cut by 27%. Although I do not believe that the report under discussion lends itself to some of the more partisan comments that we have heard, I urge those Government Members who have made the point about spending cuts not to pretend that they are not responsible for those cuts. Neither should they pretend to their constituents that they are not their responsibility. The Government acknowledge the 27% cut.

[Neil Parish]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Reed]

I am not yet a Minister, but I am happy to give way.

[Neil Parish]

I apologise—I meant to say the shadow Minister. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that we are responsible for the cuts, but will he also make the point that he and his party were responsible for the huge deficit that we inherited?

[Mr Reed]

I would love to debate this issue with the hon. Gentleman morning, noon and night.

Bovine TB

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say before I bring any more Members in that there is a lot of pressure on time, so short questions and certainly short answers will be very helpful?

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

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for all their work in looking at all sides of this argument. In 1997, 3,700 cattle were culled because of TB. By 2009, it was 37,000, and the point that Ian Paisley made—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not meant to mention Members’ names. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his question.

[Neil Parish]

The number of cattle slaughtered in those years has meant huge heartache for farmers, nowhere more so than in the part of Devon that I represent. The Republic of Ireland has had a cull that has reduced by 30% the number of infected cattle, so I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement.

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend. The figure of 37,000 cattle related to England and Wales and this programme applies to England only, but the most important point is about the spread of this disease. We have published a map to accompany this statement, and I encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to look at it and see how this disease has spread from the late 1980s to the present day: it speaks for itself.

Common Fisheries Policy

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful.

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

I spent 10 years listening to warm words from the European Commission. May I urge the Minister to take as much unilateral action as possible, first, to ban discards from our 12-mile limits, at the very least, and to use that fish efficiently both to eat and to process for fish farms and, secondly, to look after sea anglers and the under-10-metre fleet? We can do much more as a nation; let us lead by example and take the rest of the European countries with us.

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recognise his experience and the cynicism born out of his many years on the other side of the channel. I assure him that I will do all that. I want to ensure that Britain continues to be at the forefront of calling for radical reform and I am concerned with outcomes, not warm words. I am sure there will be plenty of warm words, but the proof will be found in what my fellow Ministers do. Co-decision among his erstwhile colleagues in the European Parliament is now really important.

Dangerous Dogs

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I am immensely grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing this debate. We can see from the number of Members present in the Chamber what an important subject this is and how much concern it has caused.

I should declare an interest at the outset as the owner of two adorable cocker spaniels. However, although they are both quite mad, exhibiting all the natural exuberance of the breed, neither has an aggressive bone in its body, and they are dangerous only in their capacity to leap around.

The issue of dangerous dogs affects many rural and urban constituencies and has been raised with me on numerous occasions since last year’s general election. Experiences differ: in one constituency, I have been faced with complaints about dogs being used as weapons and with the problem of dogs exhibiting pack behaviour and attacking farm animals and domestic pets. I will never forget the day when I received in the post a package containing photographs of a Jack Russell terrier that had been ripped to shreds by a larger dog.

Legislation is outdated and ineffective in addressing a problem that evidence indicates is growing. The Dogs Act 1871 is still in force, but it was significantly updated by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997, which made owning certain types of dogs a criminal offence. Until then, to be responsible for a dangerous dog was only a civil offence. The 1991 Act was a legislative reaction to a series of high-profile attacks by pit bull terriers.

I am not saying that that legislation was wrong, but it has caused heartache for the owners of dogs that have done nothing wrong other than appearing to be of the wrong breed or type. It has certainly not prevented further tragedies—indeed, they have increased—and it has caused police forces and local authorities enormous sums in court cases and kennelling fees. It has been in desperate need of updating for a long time.

Why do I believe that now is an appropriate time to update the legislation? At long last, there is widespread agreement among different organisations about the way forward. Some 20 different bodies, including the National Dog Warden Association, the Police Federation, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Communication Workers Union and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home have now reached a level of agreement about what might be effective.

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

I agree that it is not the dogs but the owners who are dangerous in many respects, especially people with status dogs who train them to be vicious. Such dogs are known to be vicious, and postal workers and midwives go into homes where such dogs have been trained to be vicious and are attacked. We must do something about that.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I will certainly address later. The crucial point is that in many cases it is the owners who are dangerous, not the dogs.

Any proposed solution must be practical and in the best interests of both dogs and their owners. Not only dog welfare organisations but professional bodies, trade unions and charities covering wide interest areas have all concluded that the current law on irresponsible dog ownership is simply inadequate. New legislation has been passed in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, and consistency across the whole United Kingdom would be helpful. Finally, in an era of austerity, the current legislation places an immense financial burden on hard-pressed bodies, such as local authorities, our police, national health and ambulance services and not to mention animal welfare organisations, which all too often end up picking up the pieces.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is a criminal offence for a dog owner or the person in charge of a dog to allow it to be dangerously out of control in a public place. Such a dog is defined as one that has injured someone or that a person has reasonable grounds to believe might do so. The most contentious part of the 1991 Act is section 1, which details the breeds of dog that it is an offence to own or keep. Four types of dog are referred to specifically, including the notorious pit bull terrier, Japanese fighting dogs and Brazilian mastiffs.

The original intention of the 1991 Act was that due to the restraints and conditions placed on owners, such dogs would simply die out, having been destroyed or compulsorily neutered, and that they would all have been eradicated by now. However, that clearly has not been the case. Evidence suggests that their popularity, and hence their number, has risen. The number of bull terriers taken in by Battersea Dogs Home has increased dramatically. I mention Staffordshire bull terriers in particular for reasons that I hope will become clear. In 1996, 380 bull terrier types were received at Battersea. Last year, there were nearly 2,500. Many of those dogs were not pit bulls but Staffies. I appreciate fully the clear difference between a Staffordshire bull terrier and an American pit bull. The Staffie is well known as a bold and fearless dog, but it is also affectionate, particularly with children. By contrast, the pit bull is a breed created by interbreeding terriers and bulldogs specifically for illegal dog fights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is important not only to examine food prices but to ensure that people are buying the right product. There are likely to be a lot of low-standard eggs coming into Britain, because we will have met the standards for the new enriched cages by January but a lot of Europe will not. What are the Government doing to prevent such eggs from coming into Britain?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have told the House before, I was the first among the EU Agriculture Ministers to spell out how important it is that all egg producers comply with the changes in the law that will apply from 1 January. I am delighted to be able to inform my hon. Friend that it will not be legal to market eggs in this country that have not been produced in enriched cages.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I support the motion as it is high time we banned animals in circuses. I have been worried about the stance that has been taken and I am glad the Government Whips have now given us a free vote on this, because animal welfare is a moral issue and Members on both sides of the House want a ban on wild animals in circuses.

The plank of the Government’s argument relating to Austria is fragile, and I fear that it might be sawn off at some stage. I would prefer us to take a much firmer stance by going for a ban and letting somebody challenge it if they want to, because I do not think that anybody will do so.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Given the position my hon. Friend has set out, why has he decided to be the lead signatory to the amendment to the motion? If my understanding is correct, the amendment would have prevented any ban from being introduced until some supposed EU legal issue was resolved.

[Neil Parish]

I will deal with that later, but I have previously stated that we should challenge the court ruling in the Austria case.

There has been too much talk today about the process of government and who is to blame and who is not to blame, instead of getting to grips with the welfare issues of animals in circuses. If we do have to take note of the case in Austria—

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about process, but does he not agree that the best thing to do is vote in favour of the motion and get the ban put in place, job done?

[Neil Parish]

Yes, but putting the ban in place will take a little while, so meanwhile we should consider certain animal welfare issues. The conditions endured by circus animals when being transported are totally wrong. The conditions need to be greatly improved. There must be much more comprehensive inspection of that, which would lead to much greater costs on such circuses. Therefore, a great deal of pressure can be applied in the meantime, before we introduce a ban.

I may disagree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), but in a democracy he has the right to raise them. He talked about the fact that many of these animals have performed for many years. They will need to be rehabilitated and found homes, so let us use the time available to good effect in that regard.

We want the Government to listen to the arguments on a total ban. I do not know what the Minister is going to say, but I would like him to say that the Government have thought again and that they are minded to introduce a ban in the future. That is what we want. In this day and age, we cannot have wild animals in circuses. Many of us also know about the pain that can be caused by the amount of training those animals are put through and the way in which they are trained to perform in unnatural ways.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the question put to him by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) about how he reconciles his current stated position with his position as the leading signatory to the amendment.

[Neil Parish]

Perhaps I am being criticised for taking a pragmatic view on this. I want a ban and the only reason for the amendment was that the requirement in the motion that a ban would have to be in place in 12 months might not have settled the legal situation. We do not want to give the Government an excuse not to move towards a ban.

[Mark Pritchard]

To which legal cases is my hon. Friend referring? There are currently none in England, the United Kingdom or in European law. There is only one possible case in Austria. Is he, as a former Member of the European Parliament and allegedly a Eurosceptic, suggesting that we should wait for the decisions of domestic courts in other capitals, let alone in European courts, before making our own decisions in this country?

[Neil Parish]

I covered that point at the beginning of my speech when I said that the case in Austria is not a good one on which to put the whole plank of the Government’s reasons for why we cannot ban the use of wild animals in circuses. As far as I am concerned, the only reason for the amendment was to give the Government time to come forward with a ban. Clearly, there is a move from all parts of the House to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. Now we want to hear from the Minister very clearly what the timetable for that will be, how we are going to deal with the court case and how we will move to a ban as quickly as possible.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Fisheries

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because that is exactly what I wish to challenge. It seems to me that we can assure the fishing industry and fishers that there is real self-interest in promoting this approach.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

No, I am already pressed enough for time.

Certain decision-making powers would be devolved to regional management bodies, in consultation with local stakeholders, in order to tailor the application of central policy objectives for EU fisheries to the specifics of each ecosystem. A fully regionalised management system would include the following features: quotas allocated on the basis of ecosystem regions in order to manage fishing pressure according to the necessities of the different ecosystems; regular scientific assessment of all marine species, not just fish stocks, within a given eco-region to establish the impact of fishing on the ecosystem as a whole; quota allocation on the basis of eco-regions with different licences used in different ecosystem regions and no transfers between the regions.

The discards in the North sea are between 40% and 60% of total catch, while in other European fisheries, such as that for west of Scotland cod, they can total as much as 90%. The vast majority of fish discarded overboard of course die. In an effort to limit fishing to sustainable levels, EU regulations under the common fisheries policy prohibit the landing of commercial species above a given annual quota. However, in practice this often results in the discarding of thousands of tonnes of saleable fish—the over-quota discards—as fishers are forced to cast overboard their excess or non-target catch before landing, so as not to contravene EU law.

The result is a policy that fails to prevent fish mortality above levels deemed biologically sustainable. That is a particular problem in mixed fisheries—the majority of EU fisheries—where fishers will catch more than their landing quota for one species as they continue fishing for others that swim with it, in order to maintain fishing throughout the year. The Government estimate that over-quota species account for about 22% of English and Welsh discards.

The introduction of catch quotas in place of the current landing quotas would make fishers accountable for their total catch, rather than for what they land, thereby eliminating the legal catch and discard of over-quota fish. The current CFP also prohibits the landing of quota species below a certain minimum landing size—MLS—to ensure that they are not caught before reaching maturity, thus preserving the reproductive capacity of the stock. In practice, however, many under-sized fish are still caught and simply discarded at sea. An estimated 24% of discards are quota species below legal MLS, so too small to land. The introduction of minimum catch sizes in place of minimum landing sizes has been successful in Norway in incentivising the use of selective gear in fisheries and minimising the catch and mortality of under-sized fish.

An estimated 54% of English and Welsh discards are of non-commercial species caught as by-catch. Stimulating the creation of new or stronger markets for under-utilised sustainable species such as dab and coley in UK fisheries could result in the elimination of unnecessary waste, greater profits for fishers and a reduction in fishing pressure on other more popular and over-exploited species. We need to be careful, however, that that policy does not encourage the creation of markets for species whose population could not support a sudden increase in harvesting.

There is currently no obligation to conduct regular stock assessments for most non-commercial species in EU waters, as they are not subject to quota restrictions, so there is little understanding of the impact that increased fishing of them would have on their stocks and on the wider ecosystem. The first priority of any policy that aims to eliminate discards and improve demand for under-utilised species, therefore, should be to mandate regular stock assessments for all species, with a view to introducing management plans, including catch quotas, for all species caught in EU fisheries.

At the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development in 2002, the EU committed to achieving a maximum sustainable yield for all fish stocks by 2015 at the latest, but in 2010 it estimated that 72% of its fisheries remained overfished, with 20% fished beyond safe biological limits, risking the wholesale collapse of those fisheries.

The EU marine strategy framework directive requires that all EU fisheries achieve good environmental status by 2020, which includes the attainment of sustainable fishing levels for all stocks. The European Commission requests scientific advice for the establishment of fisheries management plans on the basis of sustainability, but the European Council is under no obligation to adhere to that advice when agreeing total annual quotas for stocks. The result is that the European Council sets total allowable catch limits that are on average 34% higher than the scientifically recommended sustainable limits.

Ensuring that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels is an absolute prerequisite of the future profitability and survival of EU fisheries. By requiring the delivery of that target by 2015, we will ensure that the EU fulfils its international and domestic commitments to achieve sustainable fisheries and end overfishing.

A legal requirement to end overfishing of all fish and shellfish by 2015 will necessitate the following key measures: first, rendering scientific advice binding, thus preventing quotas from exceeding biologically sustainable limits; and secondly, introducing stock assessments and management plans for all fish and shellfish, including non-commercial species that are currently unmanaged, in order to establish sustainable limits for harvesting.

Co-management is an approach whereby Government authorities involve local communities and other stakeholders in management decision making, monitoring and surveillance. The approach aims to encourage co-operation and a shared sense of responsibility, and it has been shown to improve compliance with regulations as well as to improve the effectiveness of management measures, because it draws upon community knowledge to address local socio-economic and ecological issues.

The establishment of regional advisory councils is cited as a key success of the 2002 CFP reform, because they have served as forums for stakeholders to inform policy implementation at the regional level, but they have no decision-making powers.

Small-scale and artisanal fishing represents a vital link between the industry and historical coastal fishing communities, and often utilises lower-impact methods—more environmentally sustainable methods of fishing that draw on local traditional knowledge. A future common fisheries policy must reverse the balance of incentives by allocating access rights to fisheries on the basis of environmental sustainability, so giving priority to vessels that utilise selective gear and low-impact methods of fishing. By enabling the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation for UK and foreign fishing vessels within its inshore fisheries, without recourse to the European Commission, we would regain powers to determine and manage our coastal marine ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) spoke of the importance of ITQs—individual transferable quotas—and the problems that will arise from them. Under this proposal, which is probably the most dramatic in impact of any EU proposal, skippers would be guaranteed shares of national quotas for periods of at least 15 years, which they could trade among themselves—even, if the relevant national Government agree, with fleets from other countries. This is already practised on a smaller scale in several EU member states, including the UK, but it has been taken much further in other countries.

A global survey published three years ago showed that fisheries managed using ITQs were half as likely to collapse as others, which is one of the reasons why the Commission is so enthusiastic about them. However, the blanket nature of its proposals gives rise to serious concerns, and I echo those that the hon. Gentleman expressed. Ecologically, ITQs diminish overfishing and seek to protect the sustainability of fishing in the area concerned, but experience shows that they can give rise to the privatisation of fisheries. That is a very serious point, which the Minister has to take on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for seeking this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is important for me to speak in it because the future of the fishing industry is of crucial importance to Lowestoft in my constituency, where fishing has a long and proud record.

Last October, I secured an Adjournment debate on the future of the inshore fishing fleet on these coasts. The crisis facing the industry at that time and the solutions remain the same, so I will not repeat them, as they are on the record. There have, however, been four significant developments since last October.

First, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign has brought into the nation’s living rooms the scandal and obscenity of discards. As a result, our inboxes have been full. The nation has spoken; it will no longer put up with this practice.

Secondly, it is clear from her speech on 1 March that Commissioner Maria Damanaki understands the problem and appreciates that drastic action is required. She said:

“Let’s be honest, if we continue this it is like treating a serious illness with aspirin”.

There will be vested interests opposed to the commissioner as she seeks to reform the common fisheries policy next year. Our Members of the European Parliament need to give her the support she needs and deserves.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend the fisheries Minister has launched his own consultation on the future management of the domestic fisheries in England. This contains some positive proposals. It is encouraging that DEFRA appears to accept that fishing stocks are a national resource and that no third parties have acquired any proprietorial rights.

The final development since last autumn is that the Lowestoft industry continues to decline. The fishermen are allowed to catch fewer fish; they have extra costs to bear; and it is an increasingly difficult struggle for them to carry on. Only last month, the Europa café in the fish market, which has served breakfasts to fishermen for decades, was forced to close due to a continuing decline in business.

It feels as if an ambulance is now on the way, but I worry about whether the patient will be alive when it reaches the scene of the accident. The sands of time are running out for Lowestoft fishermen. I support the motion. It is important that none of us sits back and rests until a fishing regime that has almost destroyed the British fishing industry is itself discarded and thrown overboard.

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

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Gentleman will have to finish his speech at half-past 5.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak in this debate; I could not get out of the Finance (No. 3) Bill Committee until 4 o’clock. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and I also pay tribute to a great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has huge experience of the fishing industry. She has been able to return to the House in hugely difficult circumstances; our hearts very much go out to her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said that he had talked about this issue back in 1999. I was then fighting for the Conservative party, while he was fighting for another party. I recall saying to him afterwards, “Do see the light; come over to the Conservative party.” I do not know whether it was all due to me, but he obviously did see the light and came over to the true cause.

I was elected to the European Parliament and sat on its Fisheries Committee for some 10 years. In all that time, I opposed the common fisheries policy. Let me explain why. The CFP is a little bit like communism: it is a wonderful idea in principle, but in practice it just does not work, as I shall explain. If we have a common resource in Europe, every country thinks that some animals are more equal than others and are entitled to a greater proportion of the fish.

I will name some of those countries. Spain is one of them; it goes all around the world looking for fish, fishing off Africa and goodness knows where, causing an awful lot of problems. We must face up to the reality. We need our fishermen to be able to sign up to a policy to get rid of discards and to manage fisheries. If they believe that managing their fisheries sustainably will provide the fish for them to catch, they will sign up to it. I am sure that that is very much what the Minister will be aiming for. However, if a common fisheries policy means that we sustain our fish stocks but some other nation then comes in and steals them, will we be inclined to adopt such conservation measures?

Fishermen have to go out to sea and deal with the vagaries of the weather, and then they have to deal with the vagaries of the common fisheries policy. There is, for instance, the nonsense of “quota species”, which means that those who catch too many of a particular species must throw healthy fish overboard. When big boats throw discards into the sea, they often putrefy on the sea bed, which can have huge consequences.

We must take a sensible attitude, and I am delighted that the Government are doing so. Now is the time to say to fishermen, “Let us have a look at the way in which you fish. Let us ensure that when you bring your fish back, you are able to sell it.” Many Members have made the point that we need to eat more species of fish in this country, but there is another point to be made, and I have made it in the House before. During the period of the common fisheries policy, much money has been wasted when boats have been decommissioned and new boats have been built with larger engines that may enable more fish to be caught. When fish are landed that are not fit for human consumption, they can be made into fishmeal and fed to farmed fish. That may not save a vast amount of money, but it will give fishermen some incentive to land those fish.

Another point that has been made today is that until we stop discarding fish, the scientists will not know what is actually being caught, so we will not know what the stocks are. That is a central part of the argument for the banning of discards.

I also think that the argument between large and small boats must be settled. We cannot allow big companies to buy up huge amounts of quota and then force out many small fishermen. Those fishermen must have a livelihood. We must face up to the reality: it is a case of the haves and have nots, when what we want are sustainable fisheries.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Parish]

No, I will not, because I have not much time left.

I have had 10 years’ experience in Europe, where many warm words have been spoken by commissioners in the past about discards. There have been improvements such as the provision of better fishing tackle and Project 50% in Devon, but the Commission and Europe must be driven hard to make absolutely certain that we secure change—that we stop discarding fish, and all the fish that are landed are either eaten by humans or made into fishmeal to feed farmed fish.

There is a limited resource of fish in the world—there are no two ways about it—and we are consuming more fish than are being bred in the seas. If we do not act, we will destroy our own resource and our own ecosystem. I wish the Minister great success in Brussels. He must take not only his briefcase but a handbag and a concrete block, because he will need them when he is negotiating. It is necessary to negotiate very hard in Europe in order to get anywhere. I look forward to the Minister’s coming back with everything that we want.

Larch Disease

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is very nice to have this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and it is nice to see the Minister with responsibility for agriculture here.

There is an insidious disease hitting the south-west that, if swept under the carpet, could decimate some of our most treasured ancient woodland, and cost many of the green jobs in the forestry sector that are vital to the rural economy and to the maintenance of our environment. Phytophthora ramorum is a fungus-like pathogen that is causing extensive damage and mortality to plants and trees. In particular, it has infected commercial softwoods such as Japanese larch in the south-west of England and south Wales. It was unknowingly spread by plant movements of ornamental rhododendrons to gardens across the UK.

In 2000, Forestry Commission scientists found similarities between a pathogen that had been causing leaf blotch and dieback in rhododendrons in nurseries in Germany since the early 1990s, and a pathogen in California—and subsequently in Oregon—that had caused the death of more than 1 million oak trees since its symptoms were identified in the US in 1994, gaining it the name, “sudden oak death.” In Japanese larch, the symptoms are that shoots and foliage can be affected and are visible as wilted, withered shoot tips with blackened needles, with the infected shoots shedding their needles prematurely. Trees with branch dieback may have numerous cankers on their branches and upper trunk that can bleed resin.

It is now known that Japanese larch, when actively growing in spring and summer, can produce very high quantities of disease-carrying spores, at much higher levels than those produced by rhododendrons, and they can be spread across significant distances in moist air. In August 2009, the pathogen was found to have infected Japanese larch trees at sites in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, which was an unexpected change in its behaviour. More recently, in March 2011, the disease was found in the European larch in woodlands near Lostwithiel in Cornwall. The fact that this lethal pathogen has now proved capable of infecting yet another species is a worrying development and a setback in tackling the disease, but given the similarities between the two species, experts were not surprised.

Regarding the threat to the industry, as of January 2011 some 138 statutory plant notices had been issued in the UK requiring trees to be felled due to infections on some 2,200 hectares. An estimated 1,745 hectares in the south-west are affected by the disease. That is a grave threat to our woodlands and to the 2,220 people who are employed in primary production and processing. The 15,000 green jobs in the south-west supported by the forestry sector are under threat.

Japanese and European larch, the primary victims of the disease in the south-west, are extensively used in the manufacture of garden furniture, fencing and pallets, and their value to the south-west’s economy has been estimated at £47 million. Wood prices have been hit, with landowners estimating that the disease outbreak has seen larch prices fall by 35%. Over-supply, the cost of bio-security measures and the need for the diseased timber to be handled carefully only at licensed mills has also affected profitability.

Current actions by the Food and Environment Research Agency include a strategy to control and contain the disease, reducing levels of the infective spores in the environment by felling infected plantings of the principal host—Japanese larch—as rapidly as possible. FERA is also continuing its programme of clearing infected rhododendrons from woodland and other sites. There is also an aerial survey programme in the south-west, Wales and western Britain, where the climate favours the disease, to identify possible sites of infected larch, which is then followed by contact with owners, site visits to check symptoms and laboratory testing to confirm the presence or otherwise of the disease. When the disease is confirmed, there is a programme of clearance on both private and publicly owned sites and the development of a package of short-term help for private woodland owners affected by the disease, which includes a licence system to enable the movement and processing of timber from affected larch.

Other actions include continued scientific research better to understand the disease and the overall risks to our trees, woods and forests, including the potential impacts on the UK forestry sector and its associated industries; a further survey of rhododendrons by FERA, followed up with funded rhododendron clearance agreements when appropriate; and, very importantly, encouraging owners to check their woodland, especially larch plantings, for signs of the disease and to report suspicious symptoms promptly. Owners have a legal obligation under plant health legislation to notify the authorities if they suspect that the disease is present.

Regarding the effect on the forestry industry and the Confederation of Forest Industries, felling diseased larch has accelerated the loss of productive softwood forest, and the area of such forestry is already in decline, with new planting falling to match ongoing losses. A report by South West Woodland Renaissance, a coalition of 35 sawmillers and woodland owners, warned:

“The forecast total softwood availability from the current potential productive growing stock is forecast to decrease”

by up to 50%. The loss of larch trees has caused the acceleration of lost softwood forestry, undermining local green jobs and damaging efforts to reduce carbon emissions and develop a low-carbon economy.

I turn to the felling of diseased larch and replanting. Many landowners are concerned about the considerable cost of clearing woodland of infected trees, and also that the lack of support for woodland creation is inadequate and the resource is diminishing, especially with the value of larch trees going down due to so many of the trees having to be cut down because of the disease. There is a huge disparity in the current grant system, with the grant rates providing a higher contribution to the cost per hectare of planting broadleaves than softwood, and providing no grant at all for replanting softwood in protected ancient woodlands.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

May I back that up by talking about the experience of my constituent, Mr Rob White, who has lost 20 hectares of his Japanese larch under a compulsory felling notice? He is on a planted ancient woodland site and only 50% to 70% of his replanting costs would be covered—even if he planted wholly broadleaf species—and he is seriously considering the extent to which he will replant. He would, of course, like to use his common sense and replant a range of species; he has talked to me about replanting Sitka spruce and Douglas fir, which are relatively disease-resistant, and he would also like to mix in some broadleaf species. Does my hon. Friend feel that we should trust our constituents to use their common sense in that regard?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to use our common sense and bring a mixture of trees back into these ancient woodlands, which have suffered from the destructive larch disease. From my farming background, I know that the greater the spread of varieties of tree, the lower the chance of spreading the larch disease that might still be there. I am sure that the Minister heard exactly what my hon. Friend said, and it will be interesting to see whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can come up with a solution whereby we can get the forests replanted, especially the very valuable ancient woodland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall; his concerns are shared by many of us. In Northern Ireland, for example, some 200 hectares of trees are under the same threat. Does he agree that trees are perceived as the lungs of the earth and that if they die, it will affect the environment as well? They are important. Does he agree that we need a co-ordinated plan that takes in not only parts of southern England but other regions such as Northern Ireland, where there has been a severe outbreak? It is clear from the evidence that the disease has jumped species.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right. It is said that such diseases often breed better in the south-west of England due to the climate, but it is amazing how, over the years, they gradually move north. Is the disease present in Northern Ireland at the moment?

[Jim Shannon]

The evidence from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is clear. The disease is present in 200 hectares across nine woodlands and 4 hectares of private woodland. It is a disaster for the woodland in Northern Ireland, and it is prevalent in the Republic of Ireland as well.

[Neil Parish]

There are a lot of larch trees in Scotland as well. We must be concerned about the disease, which is why I am glad to have the opportunity to debate it with the Minister so that we can put the case to him. The case has been made for Northern Ireland and the south-west of England, and I will carry on. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

The industry believes that a flat-rate supplement will maintain the present imbalance of incentives, exacerbate the softwood differential and push up the cost of dealing with the disease. The Confederation of Forest Industries believes that the proposed grant system will increase the cost to the taxpayer by £1,500 a hectare. To retain a successful forestry sector in the south-west, urgent action is needed to create a more balanced grant system to allow forest owners more choice in replanting; my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made that point. We must also listen closely to people who own and manage forests.

The Clinton Devon Estates are close to my constituency, and they have assessed what is happening with the disease. Before the involvement of His Royal Highness Prince Charles in February 2011—I understand that the Secretary of State was present at a meeting with the Clinton Devon Estates—the growing belief in the industry was that the plant health threat was poorly understood within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that the issue was under-resourced and at significant risk of being compounded by a lack of timely action and resource.

The Clinton Devon Estates now believe that the situation is being turned around. Experts and practitioners across the field are pulling together an action plan that highlights the following: understanding and minimising plant disease threats and mitigating their risks; managing pests and diseases and mitigating their impact; a robust review of the UK’s plant import controls to learn how we inflicted the disease on ourselves, which we hope will delay future disease threats; continued resourcing of relevant Forestry Commission activities, specifically aerial monitoring and diagnostic and research work undertaken at the FC research station at Alice Holt, to provide rapid diagnostic support to field teams and resource to engage proactively with woodland owners; and adequate resourcing of rhododendron removal from the wider environment.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, many parts of the south-west have a huge number of rhododendrons. Natural England leads on the issue within DEFRA and has requested additional resources. To date, there has been no response, although I understand that the Minister is probably not entirely flush with money.

The disease needs to be treated like foot and mouth, and the equivalent of a national war room should be set up to give focus and momentum to efforts to address the threat. Unlike foot and mouth, larch disease does not represent an obvious issue to society. Therefore, it is important to keep the pressure on so that proper resources are allocated to addressing it. The proposed support measures for replanting infected woodland should be equitable to commercial softwood species and native broad-leaf planting. Significant productive areas within the south-west risk being lost, which would have a direct negative impact on the wood processing sector.

Some 11.5% of Devon, or some 77,000 acres of land, is woodland, enjoyed by all who visit it. However, a Forestry Commission survey found that 60% of Devon’s woodlands are under-managed. That is a key issue that should be addressed. I am happy that the Minister could be here for this debate, and I ask him to take these matters forward. As I said, not everybody realises what is happening to our forests as a result of larch disease, and we need to tackle it quickly. We have many rhododendrons in the west country that could spread the disease. I will be interested to hear what solutions he has.

Pig Farming

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for calling me, Mr Bayley, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for securing this opportune debate.

I want to concentrate first on the profitability of the pig sector. It is obvious that pig farmers cannot go on losing £20 per pig—something needs to be done. At other times when pig farmers lost money due to high cereal prices, cereal prices subsequently fell, so pig farmers could bridge the gap and the profitability of pigs returned. This time, we cannot guarantee that the peak in cereal prices will be here for only a short while; it may be here for quite a lot longer. It is always difficult to predict a market while thinking on your feet.

We must say clearly to the supermarkets that it does no good to drive pig farmers out of business, which is what they are doing. It is very short-sighted and has a knock-on effect on the cereal producer, because we produce a lot of barley and wheat for feed that goes to the pig and poultry sectors.

As many hon. Members have said, the pig industry is unsubsidised. It does not get any single farm payments, and pig farmers have to make their money back from the marketplace. We have to help them to do so through the grocery adjudicator and others. Hon. Members also talked about labelling, and although the “British” label is not always easy to get, there are regional labels, which have legal standing and are easier to maintain. When I was in the European Parliament, the French, and particularly the Italians, seemed to manage to label everything with a region and, largely, get away with it. We have to be keen on this.

Back in the ’90s, we introduced extra welfare standards for pig farming. Why did we bring those in? Because our people are very keen on animal welfare, but, to put it bluntly, if they are keen on animal welfare, they should put their money where their mouth is. Clearly, higher standards make costs higher, so we must ensure that produce is properly labelled in supermarkets so that consumers know what they are buying and are able to buy a British product.

Our main competitors in the pig industry are the Danes, probably closely followed by the Germans, and they are using sow stalls and tethers to this day. I remember trying to table an amendment to get them banned in Denmark by 2004, but the Danes are getting away with it until 2012. The Minister is a friend to farming, and I know that he will fight our corner very hard to ensure that there is no extension. This has gone on for far too many years and driven far too many pig farmers out of business.

Pig farmers do not want to join the subsidy junket. One or two might, but generally they want a fair price for their pigmeat. I have been to many local producers in my constituency to see the farrowing and the outdoor pig systems. We have some of the best, if not the best, pig systems in the world, but that costs more money. We have all made this plea to the Minister: let us look at this matter every way we can. Let us help pig farmers to brand their produce with a local label—Devon meat, of course, is better than any, but perhaps Norfolk meat is nearly as good—and to market it so we can get an increase in price. We give Morrisons top marks, but other supermarkets have lower grades, so let us say to the supermarkets that they cannot go on making pig farmers produce pork at a loss, because the pork will not be there. Once pork in the rest of Europe has decreased—the German situation—and production has fallen, there will not be this vast amount of pork sloshing about in the European market. What the supermarkets are doing is all very short-sighted.

We should look at ways that Government can help, but this is also about the power of the consumer. We must get the message over to consumers that they must go into the supermarkets, look at the label and ensure that the Union Jack is not just for processing, but that the pork was reared, slaughtered and processed in the UK. That someone can still put a Union Jack on a label just for processing is a problem. Often, people will pick that product up as though it is a genuine British product.

I welcome the debate. The number of Members present this afternoon, even with the Budget debate going on, shows how important we feel the topic is. I also welcome the presence of the Minister and the shadow Minister.