Agricultural and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Thursday 17 October in Luxembourg. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will be representing the UK. Richard Lochhead MSP may also attend.
The Council will concentrate on fisheries items. There are no agricultural items scheduled for this Council.
The agenda items are as follows:
Council regulation fixing the 2014 fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic sea
EU /Norway: annual consultation for 2014
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) annual meeting— exchange of views
AOB item: north-east Atlantic mackerel management and coastal state negotiations
European Environmental Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Council meeting will open with an exchange of views on a proposal to amend regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 on shipments of waste. The Commission is concerned by the uneven standard of enforcement across member states against illegal shipments of waste and would like to strengthen the requirements for enforcement. The Commission has issued a proposal to amend the regulation to require competent authorities to prepare and publish inspection plans. The amendments would introduce provisions for competent authorities to request proof from an exporter where it was suspected that they were exporting waste in the guise of a product in order to evade the controls, and also to request evidence that material exported for recovery had been recovered in an environmentally sound manner in the destination country. The amendments would also allow the Commission to adopt delegated acts on technical and organisational requirements for the practical implementation of electronic data interchange for the submission of documents and information. The UK supports the principle of strengthening the enforcement of the regulations, but has concerns about some of the detail in the proposal.
After a series of AOB points, the Council will then seek to adopt non-legislative Council conclusions on preparations for the 19th Session of the conference of the parties (COP 19) to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the ninth session of the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol (CMP 9). COP 19 will take place in Warsaw, Poland from 11 to 22 November 2013, and these conclusions will form the basic framework of the EU’s negotiating position at COP 19.
Ministers will then break for a working lunch, during which they will discuss green infrastructure. In May 2013, the Commission adopted a communication on an EU-wide strategy on green infrastructure, which foresees a series of actions that provide an enabling framework, combining policy signals, technical or scientific actions, and better access to finance. The strategy will be implemented within the context of existing legislation, policy instruments and funding mechanisms.
In the afternoon the presidency will present a compromise package of amendments, determining how vehicle manufacturers will achieve existing long-term CO2 targets for cars. Some member states have expressed reservations with the deal following concerns raised by industry, and discussion of the package and possible compromise amendments are expected.
Over the course of the day, the following topics will be covered under “any other business”:
Information from the Commission on the EU emissions trading scheme/aviation.
Information from the presidency and the Commission on international meetings and events.
Information from the Commission on a system for monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international maritime transport.
Information from the Danish delegation on a political declaration concerning the use of industrial gas credits under the effort-sharing decision and from the Commission on facilitating a global HFC phase-down agreement under the Montreal protocol.
Information from the Hungarian delegation on the “Budapest Water Summit” (8-11 October 2013).
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
2. When he expects bovine tuberculosis in England to have been eradicated.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I welcome the Opposition Front Benchers to their new positions—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is the new shadow Secretary of State, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who have stood down from the Government Front Bench, for their sterling work, for the absolute support I received, and for the sensible advice and experience they brought to their posts. I also welcome two new Under-Secretaries of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). They come from a rural background and will embellish the Department.
The answer to the question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is that the Government have recently completed their consultation on a draft strategy for achieving officially bovine TB-free status for the whole of England in 25 years.
Mr Sheerman
The truth is that the cull is incompetent—it has been described as such by the lord mayor of Oxford, and the whole May family, including Brian May, say that it is a disaster—but we should not ignore the fact that what is being done to badgers in the west country is morally reprehensible. It is ineffective and inefficient, and ignores scientific opinion. Why does the Secretary of State not resign?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman supported a Government who did nothing about the disease. Thanks to the policies of the Government he supported, 305,000 otherwise healthy cattle were hauled off to slaughter at a cost to the British taxpayer of £500 million. If we go on as he left it, the disease would double over nine years, we would be looking at a bill of £1 billion and we would not have a cattle industry. The pilots were set up to establish the safety, the humaneness and the efficiency of a controlled shooting by skilled marksmen. It is quite clear that, after the first six weeks, we have succeeded on all three criteria.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Schools across Britain recently celebrated world milk day—milk is produced by cattle, Mr Speaker—which I saw for myself when I visited Pavilion nursery school in Attleborough, Mid Norfolk. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House applaud that initiative as a key opportunity to highlight the benefits of milk as the health drink, and the enormous pressures facing the UK dairy sector, not least the threat of TB in cattle. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the dairy market is working properly for consumers, processers and farmers?
Mr Speaker
Order. That was an extraordinarily strained attempt on the part of the hon. Gentleman to shoehorn his personal pre-occupations into Question 2, but the Secretary of State is a dextrous fellow, and I dare say he can respond pithily.
Mr Paterson
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend raises a vital point—we need a dynamic, productive and successful dairy industry. We will not have a dairy industry if we do not tackle that bacterium, and if we do not do what every other sensible country has done when there is a reservoir of disease in cattle and a reservoir of disease in wildlife.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The estimate last October was that there were 4,300 badgers in Somerset. The estimate this week is 1,450. Is it the Secretary of State who has moved the goalposts, and not the badgers? Has he not scored a massive own goal in pursuing this misguided cull?
Mr Paterson
I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw my comments. I stated something that was screamingly obvious: badgers are wild animals that live in an environment in which their numbers are impacted by weather and disease. She should reflect on this. I can report to the House that some of the animals we have shot have been desperately sick—in the final stages of disease—which is why we are completely determined to see the pilot culls through, and why we will pursue measures that the previous Government ducked. We are dealing with a bacterium that affects cattle and wildlife, and ultimately human beings. We will address that bacterium in a rigorous and logical manner.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Further to that point, given that the policy must be based on sound science and evidence, can my right hon. Friend say whether there have been similar dramatic drops in badger numbers in the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency site at Woodchester park and sites such as Wytham in Oxfordshire, where they are monitored closely?
Mr Paterson
I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers at Woodchester park, but in other areas there has been a significant reduction in badger numbers compared with this time last year.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Last year, the Secretary of State cancelled the cull because there were too many badgers. Yesterday, he admitted that the cull in Somerset would be extended because he could not find enough of them. Can he explain why Gloucestershire has also applied for an extension, even though the six-week trial there has not finished? Is it because the badgers have moved the goalposts there as well?
Mr Paterson
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I should like her to reflect that, back in 1972, we had the disease beaten—it was down to 0.01%—when we had a bipartisan approach. In every other country where there is a serious problem in cattle and a serious problem in wildlife, both pools are addressed. Her Government tried to sort the problem out by addressing the disease only in cattle. That was a terrible mistake.
On the numbers, as I have just told the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), these animals are wild. There have been similar reductions in Gloucestershire. We are satisfied that, if the local farmers company wants to go on and to apply for an extension, we will be broadly supportive.
Maria Eagle
I am afraid that this policy is an absolute shambles. The Secretary of State has failed to meet his own target of eradicating 70% of the local badger population in Somerset, and it is clear that he expects to fail in Gloucestershire too. He must know that extending these trials risks spreading TB over a wider area. Rather than the ever-rising cost of policing his failed approach, we need a coherent plan to eradicate TB through the vaccination of badgers and cattle, and tougher rules on the movement of livestock. Instead of blaming the badgers, when will he stop being stubborn, admit he was wrong and abandon this misguided, unscientific and reckless killing of badgers?
Mr Paterson
I am disappointed by that question. We are clear—and we have had advice from the chief veterinary officer—that the number that was achieved in Somerset will lead to a reduction in disease. The hon. Lady should look at what Australia did with its buffalo pool, what New Zealand did with the brushtail possum and—importantly—what the Republic of Ireland did when it had a steadily rising crest of disease in cattle. As soon as the Irish started to remove diseased badgers, they saw a dramatic reduction in affected cattle and, happily, the average Irish badger is now 1kg heavier than before the cull. The Irish are arriving at a position that we want to reach— healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers.
Mr Speaker
We need to speed up. Succinctness can be exemplified by Mr Laurence Robertson.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As part of the cull is taking place in my constituency, I thank the Secretary of State for being the first in over a generation to tackle this issue. Does he share my concern at the statement made by the police and crime commissioner for Gloucestershire yesterday opposing the extension of the trial? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what should happen, not a publicity-seeking PCC?
Mr Paterson
Policing issues are not for me. There will be legitimate protests because we live in a democracy and we respect that, but there is a grey line and we do not support obstruction of a policy that was endorsed by both parties in opposition and in government and has been endorsed by this House.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
3. What timetable he has set for the completion of the England coastal path.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
4. How many cattle were slaughtered in Britain as a result of bovine tuberculosis in the last 10 years; and at what cost.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Between 2003 and 2012, a total of 305,270 otherwise healthy cattle were compulsory slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of bovine TB. In England alone, the disease has cost the taxpayer £500 million in the past decade.
Sir Tony Baldry
Cattle may not have the same anthropomorphic advocates as some other animals, but they are equally part of God’s creation. Is it not a tragedy that more than 300,000 healthy cattle have had to be slaughtered? Is it not right that unless, collectively, we manage to sort out bovine TB, huge numbers of other healthy cattle will be slaughtered? There has to be some concern for cattle in all of this.
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. In his county, 234 otherwise healthy cattle were slaughtered in 2012. Shockingly, in the first six months of this year the number of healthy cattle slaughtered reached 307. I again appeal to those on the Opposition Front Bench to look at the policies pursued in America, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and even by their socialist friends in France, where there are regular culls of diseased animals. We do not have a valid cattle vaccine. We are working closely with the European Commission, but we are at least 10 years away from that, so the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) cannot hide behind dreams ahead. We have to address the disease now with the tools we have at the moment, as every other sensible country does.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is indeed a tragedy that so many cattle have been slaughtered, but that does not make a badger cull right or effective. The Department is reported to be undertaking new research into the possible gassing of badgers. Will he confirm that that is the case? If so, what is the scope of the research, and why does he have cause to think that the 2005 DEFRA review, which found that gassing badgers could not be done humanely, is no longer valid?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. As I have just said, until we can establish vaccines we have to use the tools employed by other sensible countries to remove wildlife. Our TB strategy is clear about looking at other methods of removing wildlife. Yes, gassing is under consideration, but we will not use it unless it is proven to be safe, humane and effective.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
14. Farmers in Stratford-on-Avon welcome the Government’s commitment to the control of bovine TB through the culling of badgers. There is, however, significant concern about the reservoir of TB in camelids and the lack of a testing or control regime for these animals. What do the Government intend to do on this matter?
Mr Paterson
I am acutely aware of the concerns of livestock farmers about the risk to cattle posed by camelids. However, evidence suggests that camelids pose a very small risk of spreading the disease to cattle and badgers. In fact, there are no known cases where a cattle breakdown has been caused directly by transmission from camelids. Nevertheless, I have asked the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England for advice on a proportionate disease control regime for the camelid sector, including how surveillance, breakdown and pre-movement testing can be more effectively carried out.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Media reports suggest that some gassing of badgers is taking place. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if his officials come across any evidence of the gassing of badgers, they pass it on to the police?
Mr Paterson
Emphatically yes, because any random cull would worsen the disease. If the hon. Member has such evidence, he should take it to the police.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friends on their new positions and I look forward to working with them. Sadly, bovine TB is well established and endemic in various parts of England, but other parts are free of the disease. What action is the Department taking to ensure that the disease does not spread from the highly infected areas to the less infected areas?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The danger is that unless we get a grip on the disease in high risk areas it will work its way across to other areas—I cited the figures for Oxfordshire in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). Our TB strategy is clear about containing the disease in high-risk areas and not letting it spread. We must be emphatic about that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Given that it has so far cost the taxpayers of Somerset and Gloucestershire £4 million, I was rather concerned that the Secretary of State implied that he did not think that policing was of any concern to him. Does he not think that that money would be better spent on a comprehensive badger vaccination programme?
Mr Paterson
I think the hon. Lady may have misinterpreted my comments. I do not handle policing; I handle disease in animals. This is a zoonosis, which has to be brought under control. It will take 10 years for a programme agreed with the European Commission to develop a cattle vaccine. Labour Members need to recognise that we cannot sit around as they did, waiting for a new tool to arrive. We have to use the existing tools, which have effectively reduced the disease in other more sensibly run countries.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
5. What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
DEFRA’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health, and I am today pleased to announce £3 million of funding from the anaerobic digestion loan fund, which will enable farmers to obtain funding to set up small-scale anaerobic digestion plants. The technology will not only save farmers money on energy costs, but will provide them with the opportunity to boost their income by exporting electricity to the grid. It will also help them cut waste and reduce the amount of artificial fertilisers they use. This funding is an example of this Government’s commitment to sustainable economic growth and environmental improvement. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Grahame M. Morris
I want to ask about food banks and, in particular, about the answers the Minister gave a few moments ago in response to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I understand that in April 2013 DEFRA commissioned important research to review evidence on the landscape of food provision and access. Given that this information and research will be very helpful to Government in targeting policy to the most needy, why is it not being published? I know the Minister is new in post, but can he expedite this, because a promise was made that it would be posted on the Department’s website?
Mr Paterson
I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. We undertake research on a whole range of areas and this obviously cuts across a number of different Departments, with whom we are consulting.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
T4. Will the Secretary of State ensure more people are able to enjoy access to woodlands, particularly those close to our towns and cities?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
T5. Given the importance of exports to the country’s economic recovery, what is my right hon. Friend doing to help producers and exporters open up foreign markets?
Mr Paterson
Only this week I was in Cologne, taking our largest ever delegation to the world’s largest food fair; last month, I was in Moscow, where we announced a trade deal opening up the market for beef and lamb which will be worth up to £100 million over three years; and our work last year in opening up China has led to a 591% increase in pork exports in the first six months of this year.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
T2. My constituents who work at Tate & Lyle have been very appreciative of the Secretary of State’s efforts to secure a level playing field for cane sugar refiners in the European market. His former ministerial team were very diligent on this issue. I welcome his new team and wonder whether he can reassure the House that they will be equally determined on this issue.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T3. Is the Secretary of State aware of the most recent piece of scientific research on the Cayman turtle farm? It supports the position of the World Society for the Protection of Animals that: “There is no humane way to farm sea turtles”. Will he, along with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, take decisive action to alleviate the suffering of these endangered animals?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The matter he raises is of real concern to a number of Members who have written to me. We are taking what actions we can, but we are the Government of the UK, and he has to remember that.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
T8. Poaching in some parts of Africa is getting so bad that Tanzanian Minister Khamis Kagasheki has called for a shoot-to-kill policy to deal with poachers, following the loss of half of Tanzania’s elephants in the past three years. On current trends, it is estimated that the African elephant will be extinct in the wild by 2025. What action are the Government taking to tackle the illegal trade in endangered species?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this shocking issue, on which he is absolutely right. The problem is even worse in respect of rhinoceroses; we lose one every 11 hours. So this Government are taking a world lead. We are calling a conference on 13 February next year, and we intend to co-ordinate world action—with western countries, with the countries where these animals live and with the countries where there is significant demand—before these iconic species become extinct.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
T7. Whether or not the Government see sense next week and accept our amendments on dog control notices, that will not resolve all the issues relating to dangerous dogs, including controlling breeding, and ensuring that puppies are properly socialised and that children and adults are educated about dog ownership. Does the Minister agree that we still need a full dog welfare and control Bill?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Do my right hon. and hon. Friends share my alarm at the growing practice of Natural England’s insisting on the removal of sheep from land under new stewardship projects? Given the absolute need for the UK to be able to provide more of its own food, is that not a dangerous step? Will Ministers take action?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which touches on our conundrum in the hill areas, where we clearly want to increase food production but also want to improve the environment. We will be consulting shortly on whether we modulate a significant sum from pillar 1 to pillar 2 and what the shape and form of those pillar 2 schemes might be. I am absolutely clear that we have a real role to play in helping hill farmers to keep the hills looking as they do and to provide them with sufficient money to provide food.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Is it acceptable that properties built after 2009 and small businesses will not be covered by the Government’s new flood insurance scheme?
Mr Paterson
We are working very closely with the Association of British Insurers on the new scheme, which will replace the statement of principles, and we are looking in detail at a range of different options. We do not propose to extend the scheme to post-2009 properties.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Local people have for many years expressed concern about the Whitsand bay dump site. They have identified an alternative site; will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the reclassification of that alternative site?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
To better understand the spread of TB in wildlife, why are the badgers that are being culled not being tested to see whether they are infected or not?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Let me clarify in simple terms: carcases that have been shot would not give an accurate reading following post-mortem.
Bovine TB
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The two badger cull pilots, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, were designed to test that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers. Successfully tackling bovine TB (bTB) in the badger population is a key element in our strategy to rid England of bTB within 25 years.
Today I am announcing to the House that the six-week period of the Somerset TB control pilot cull was completed on 6 October. Current indications suggest that the pilot has been safe, humane and effective in delivering a reduction in the badger population of just under 60%. We set ourselves a challenging target of aiming to ensure that 70% of the badger population was removed during the pilot. The chief veterinary officer (CVO) has advised that the 60% reduction this year will deliver clear disease benefits as part of a four-year cull. However, Natural England are considering an application from Somerset for a short extension of the culling period, as provided for under the agreement with the company. The advice of the CVO is that further increasing the number of badgers culled would improve those benefits even further and enable them to accrue earlier.
The targets for this cull were set at the outset on the basis of population estimates carried out in September 2012. This was repeated in August 2013 immediately before the culls started.
The results of this latest exercise show that the estimated number of badgers is significantly fewer in both areas compared to last summer. In Somerset the latest population estimate is 1,450 compared to 2,400 last year, and in Gloucestershire 2,350 compared to 3,400.
In the six weeks of the cull, 850 badgers have been removed in Somerset.
One of the lessons we have learned already from this pilot is that in order to ensure high levels of safety and humaneness, the cull period may need to be longer than six weeks in future. The independent panel of experts will consider all the information which has been collated during the culls and it will be made publicly available after the culls have finished.
The cull in Gloucestershire is still ongoing and I will make a further statement when the six weeks is completed. I understand that this morning Gloucestershire is also submitting an application for an extension to Natural England.
To achieve our aim of ridding England of bTB within 25 years will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. This Government are committed to tackling the disease in all reservoirs and by all available means. Our cattle industry and the countryside deserve no less.
Biodiversity Offsetting/Ecosystems Markets Task Force
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Government are today publishing a Green Paper on biodiversity offsetting and their response to the Ecosystems Markets Task Force (EMTF) report.
Published on 5 March 2013, the EMTF report made recommendations to enhance the environment and drive growth across a range of sectors, including water, energy, knowledge services, construction and manufacturing.
The taskforce’s report highlights and builds on many important areas that we are actively pursuing, such as anaerobic digestion and innovative woodland and water management. The Government’s response explains how we intend to drive these opportunities forward and maintain pace in our work to firmly establish natural capital in our decision making. The taskforce identified biodiversity offsetting as its first area for action.
Biodiversity offsets are conservation activities that are designed to give biodiversity gain to compensate for residual losses. They are different from other types of ecological compensation as they need to show measurable outcomes that are sustained overtime. Biodiversity offsetting is already used in more than 25 countries including Australia, Germany, India and the United States.
The Government are interested in how a biodiversity offsetting scheme tailored to England can help the country meet its need for both nature and development for its long-term prosperity. The planning system should help deliver both these objectives. The best planning decisions do manage to protect and enhance biodiversity; however, the system does not always work as well as it should. Some planning decisions take too long and the outcome can be too uncertain, which can hinder development. At the same time biodiversity impacts are not always adequately taken into account, or mitigated or compensated for in ways that deliver enduring environmental benefit.
Biodiversity offsetting has the potential to help the planning system deliver more for the environment and the economy. This Green Paper:
Explains what biodiversity offsetting is;
Sets out the Government’s objectives to avoid additional costs to developers and achieve better environmental outcomes and explores how offsetting could help achieve these objectives;
Sets out the options for biodiversity offsetting and the Government’s preference to give developers the choice to use offsetting and seeks comments;
Seeks evidence to improve Government’s understanding of the costs and benefits of biodiversity offsetting compared to existing approaches;
Asks questions about how detailed design of an offsetting system should be approached.
The biodiversity offsetting consultation paper and the Government’s response to the EMTF report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation runs until 7 November 2013. Following the consultation, the Government will develop their detailed proposals for using biodiversity offsetting and plan to set these out by the end of 2013.
Bovine TB
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Following the National Farmers Union’s (NFU’s) statement of 27 August, I would like to confirm to the House that culling is now under way. The cull will be carried out in two areas (Somerset and Gloucestershire) over a period of six weeks. I understand the pilot cull is proceeding to plan and those involved are pleased with progress to date.
The aim of the pilot cull is to test how an industry-led badger control programme can be delivered effectively, humanely and safely. Monitoring will be carried out to test that controlled shooting meets these assumptions. The outcome of the pilot cull and an analysis of the monitoring will be published. The evidence will considered by Ministers in deciding whether or not the policy should be rolled out more widely.
The decision to pilot a badger cull is not one that has been taken lightly, but it is based on the best available scientific evidence and the experience of other countries. No country has successfully dealt with TB without tackling the disease in both wildlife and cattle. It is vital that we learn from the experience of the Republic of Ireland, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. We will be evaluating the outcome of this pilot cull carefully in deciding whether or not to roll this policy out more widely.
Culling is only one part of a broader, comprehensive TB eradication strategy for achieving TB-free status in England over the course of the next 25 years. Since July, I have been consulting all interested parties on the strategy. It sets out a full range of measures, including disease surveillance, pre and post-movement cattle testing, removal of cattle exposed to bovine tuberculosis (bTB), culling and vaccination trials. It also focuses on the development of new techniques such as badger and cattle vaccines and new diagnostic tests that could one day offer new ways of tackling the disease.
BTB is the most pressing animal health problem in the UK. The disease is getting worse and is spreading across the country. In the last 10 years, bTB has cost the taxpayer £500 million. It is estimated that this will rise to £1 billion over the next 10 years if the disease is left unchecked. This pilot cull is a necessary part of a wide range of actions that we need to take if we are to free the cattle industry from the burden of this devastating disease. We wish to see healthy cattle living alongside healthy wildlife.
Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
In my statement to the House on 20 May 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, I announced the publication of the final report of the tree health and plant biosecurity taskforce. I set out the Government’s initial response and committed to providing the House with an update before the summer recess, having discussed the taskforce’s recommendations with a range of interested parties.
Last week, I heard from over 80 stakeholders at a summit organised to discuss the taskforce’s recommendations and to report on progress since the report was published. There was universal acceptance of the need for urgent action and a range of constructive ideas about how we should take forward work to safeguard plant health using the taskforce report as a blueprint. The key messages from those discussions were:
We need strong collaboration across the UK and with the Republic of Ireland to ensure effective biosecurity;
At EU level, we need to take a tougher line, seeking protected zone status well before new pests and diseases arrive and only allowing new trades when we are sure that they do not represent an unacceptable risk;
We need to hold other member states to high standards of surveillance and enforcement to ensure that all are playing their part in keeping the EU safe from threats from other parts of the world;
All our actions need to be underpinned by a strong evidence base and effective horizon scanning.
The summit also provided an opportunity to report on action taken since May when I made a commitment to rapid progress on two of the taskforce’s key recommendations: producing a prioritised risk register and improving our preparedness and contingency planning. Stakeholders have said that this was the right place to start and that we need the risk register in place as soon as possible.
Work on the first phase of the risk register has advanced very quickly through several weeks of intensive work with stakeholders to capture the key risks to UK crops, trees, gardens and ecosystems from plant pests and diseases, and the pathways through which they are transmitted. Over the summer, work on the risk register will continue to identify threats against which new action needs to be taken. This will include where regulation needs to be tightened, where we need to fill gaps in our knowledge and where the current approaches are no longer cost effective and should be adapted in the light of new information. Over 700 pests and pathogens will be considered. The first phase of the risk register will be published for consultation in the autumn.
Work on contingency planning to ensure we are prepared to face new threats will get underway shortly, drawing on the risk register. Again, stakeholders will play an important role in helping us develop robust plans.
I will ensure that there is effective leadership for these vital activities. I am announcing today that I will shortly be launching an exercise to recruit a senior-level chief plant health officer in response to another of the taskforce’s recommendations. He or she will play a prominent and influential role in advising Ministers, industry and others about the risks posed by plant pests and diseases. They will also ensure that measures are in place to manage those risks and minimise their impact. In the event of an outbreak, the chief plant health officer will lead the operational response, providing clear leadership and accountability.
Stakeholders have told me that it is vital that the chief plant health officer has direct access to Ministers and the authority to act when necessary. I will ensure that that is the case. I have recently initiated monthly biosecurity meetings to assess the latest risks to plant health, animal health and from non-native invasive species. The chief plant health officer will report directly to Ministers and senior officials at those meetings and will be able to call on the resources needed to tackle threats.
Plant health policy is devolved, but the chief plant health officer will play a role in representing the whole of the UK in EU and international fora. I am writing to Ministers in the devolved Administrations setting out my plans and inviting them to consider how this new role might encourage closer collaboration to improve biosecurity across the UK.
The taskforce also recommended that we review the legislation and governance surrounding plant health. The first phase of work on that will begin tomorrow as we launch the next round of the red tape challenge, which will include a review of existing regulation on plant health and forestry. This will provide an opportunity for all with an interest to comment and identify gaps, overlaps and anomalies, some of which were highlighted in the taskforce’s report. This is the first step in developing a clearer and more effective regulatory landscape for plant health.
As we develop the right framework to safeguard plant health, I will continue to take action to improve our understanding and to tackle current and imminent threats:
We have recently consulted on a pest risk assessment on Cryphonectria parasitica or sweet chestnut blight, and are planning to introduce measures to ban its import from areas where the disease is present before the next planting season.
Since May we have completed this spring’s spraying programme aiming to eradicate oak processionary moth in Pangbourne, Berkshire, and are piloting new approaches to reduce its impacts in London, where tens of thousands of oaks have been treated at 200 sites;
We have recently awarded a £1.1 million research contract for a three-year study of acute oak decline which is present in the UK;
Large-scale field trials are now underway in the east of England to try to identify resistance to Chalara, dieback of ash, and potential treatments for Chalara will undergo field trials this summer;
We have secured funding from the EU Life+ programme to support the development of ObservaTree, a tree health early warning system using volunteer groups.
I will continue the dialogue with stakeholders over the coming months and provide an update on progress. I will publish a full response to the remaining taskforce recommendations later this year.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 15 July in Brussels. I will be representing the UK. Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA may also attend.
On fisheries business the Commission will give a presentation on the consultation on fishing opportunities for 2014. The presidency will also seek agreement to a general approach on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
Agriculture business will focus on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package. At present there are six any other business items;
Neonicotinoids;
Labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning;
Economic consequences to the Cyprus poultry sector due to the occurrence of Newcastle disease;
Food loss and waste;
Mislabelling of beef product is a presentation from the Commission;
North East Atlantic mackerel.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The new CAP framework through pillar two provides a good basis, with a range of tools to help us, to improve the environment and our biodiversity. Farmers and other land managers already provide a range of environmental benefits. The new arrangements will allow us to enhance the effectiveness of existing schemes and consider new approaches that contribute to our “Biodiversity 2020” quantified outcomes.
Kerry McCarthy
Will the Secretary of State now make good on his promise of public money for public good and ensure that the new CAP is implemented in the most effective way possible by maximising the transfer of funds from pillar one to pillar two, ensuring a central role for agri-environment schemes and implementing an ambitious approach to the greening of pillar one funding?
Mr Paterson
I am happy to confirm my long-standing belief that we should transfer 15% from pillar one to pillar two. Our pillar two schemes do real good for the environment and 70% of our arable land uses those schemes. We also need to develop new schemes, as 30% of the new pillar one will depend on greening. We also have a guarantee, which we drove through the negotiations, that 30% of the rural development funds will be spent on the environment.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The settlement for farmers across Britain is a tough one and they need to compete in a single market with all their continental competitors. Can we ensure that we implement our part of the single farm payment in this country in the most sympathetic way possible so that we can have effective and competitive food production?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. I have said on many occasions—I frequently repeated myself during the negotiations—that we must ensure that the way in which we impose CAP reform is simple and easy to understand. We will not make the mistakes of the previous Government, who caught us up in a horribly complex system that cost us €590 million in what the EU calls disallowances but in what I would call a fine.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I urge the Secretary of State to be a champion of joined-up government? The G8 settlement on social impact investment was a breath of fresh air; can it link to anything in the CAP settlement, so we can get some serious social impact investment in the rural economy?
Mr Paterson
As I told the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), we intend to modulate 15% into pillar two, and there are real benefits for the rural economy, the rural environment and rural society from our rural development programme for England schemes.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Upland farms in the UK, particularly those in England, are good at delivering environmental objectives. What will the reformed CAP do to ensure that upland farms maintain their financial viability, so they can continue to deliver those public goods?
Mr Paterson
I confirm again my belief that because in parts of the UK, such as upland areas, it is tough to make a living purely from food production, there is a significant role for taxpayers’ money to be spent on environmental schemes supporting the valuable work upland farmers do to protect and improve the environment, upon which sits a tourism industry worth £33 billion.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The “State of Nature” report produced by 25 major UK conservation organisations found that 60% of UK species reliant on farmlands are in decline. Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been concern about a shortage of funding for high nature value farming areas? What steps will he take to support farmers so that they can continue to produce high-quality food in those areas and protect threatened species as well?
Mr Paterson
I think the hon. Lady knows that we get real value out of our existing higher level stewardship scheme. As I made clear in previous replies, I will endorse the transfer of money from pillar one to pillar two for environmental schemes, which will bring real benefits to our biodiversity and the species about which she is concerned.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
The financial viability of smaller farmers in Warwickshire is of concern. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give my smaller farmers that transfers from pillar one to pillar two will not cause them hardship?
Mr Paterson
It is simple: the funds will be spent on projects related to agriculture and the rural environment and economy, and farmers both small and large will benefit from the transfer of the funds.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
5. What assessment he has made of trends in levels of food insecurity in the UK since 2010.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
6. What recent progress has been made on reform of the common agricultural policy.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 June political agreement was reached on the CAP reform regulations. Overall the CAP package does not represent a significant reform, but we substantially improved the Commission’s original proposals and fended off attempts by others to introduce a number of regressive measures. By agreeing to the regulations now, we are able to provide certainty to farmers and paying agencies.
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on his work at the council. Will he enlighten the House on what those regressive measures were, because my farmers remain very concerned that they will be worse off as a result of some of the changes compared with their continental competitors?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to enlighten the House. It was extraordinary that at a very late stage in negotiations the European Parliament made moves to penalise the most efficient dairy processors and reward the least efficient. There were extraordinary moves as late as last Monday night to introduce coupled payments for tobacco, pigs, poultry and cotton. I think the UK played a part, working closely with our allies, and we saw off a number of other regressive measures, such as double funding. I hope that when the detail is worked out with the representatives of the farming unions, they will see that we stood by British farming and stopped a lot of really bad things coming through this reform.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the best possible reform of the CAP would be to return agricultural policy to member states? Will the issue of agriculture be on the table when the Prime Minister renegotiates our relationship with Europe?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am a strong supporter of being able to make more decisions on these matters in this House. It might reassure him to know that this reform means that a lot more decisions will be made locally, so there will be, in effect, an English CAP and each of the regions, which were very keen to be able to make decisions, will have power to decide on all four regulations.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The key will be how the reform is implemented in this country. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the active farmer will remain the main beneficiary, particularly those in the uplands, tenant farmers and commoners whose animals graze on common land?
Mr Paterson
Emphatically, yes: I am very happy to confirm to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that, as we work out the detail of the implementation of the reform in England, our drive will be to ensure that the agricultural sector gains from it. As I made clear in my comments on pillar two, we want to direct this towards rural areas in a way that benefits the rural environment and rural farmers.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is, of course, right that public money should be spent on public goods. At a time of severe austerity, what public good is there in spending hundreds of thousands of pounds—indeed, £1 million cheques—on large landowners who do not need the money?
Mr Paterson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The fact is that we are going from 7 billion to 9 billion people. There has been complacency in this country over recent years, because there was unlimited, safe and easily accessible food to be bought abroad. We want to make sure that we have an extremely efficient, high-tech agricultural sector producing food. I take food security extremely seriously and welcome large, efficient farmers.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
7. What progress his Department is making on the establishment of marine conservation zones.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his Departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Department’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health. Today, I have published a draft strategy for achieving official bovine TB-free status in England over 25 years, and a copy has been placed in the Library. The strategy draws on international experience demonstrating the need to bear down on the disease in cattle and wildlife. It sets out our determination to work in partnership with the industry to develop and deploy new technologies, and we will also explore new options for governance, delivery and funding. Tackling the disease will require long-term solutions and national resolve. Our cattle industry and countryside deserve no less.
Hugh Bayley
Ash is a huge and important part of woodland scenery in Yorkshire, especially in upland areas, and ash dieback is increasing at an alarming rate, with more than 500 cases having been identified. The Secretary of State has reduced the staffing of the Forestry Commission by more than 500. How will he deal with something that could be a catastrophe for our woodlands without shifting staff and closing other parts of the Department?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is right that the potential damage of Chalara to our rural environment is absolutely devastating. We will make our dispositions of the resources within the Department in the autumn, but I assure him that I have made plant health an absolute priority, right up with animal health. I have been to Australia and New Zealand to see what they are doing on biosecurity, and the plant taskforce has made some important recommendations, such as the risk register, which we are already implementing.
The answer for ash is to find a genetic strain. There is sadly no magic potion that we can spray on ash trees yet, although we are testing 14 of them, so a genetic strain is the real answer. For that reason, we have put out 250,000 young ash trees to see which ones are resistant.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
T3. The average household loses £700 of food each year to waste. The Government have improved the date labelling of food, but will the Minister help even further by supporting prominent labelling advice on how food can best be stored at home to prolong its freshness?
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
T7. I know that the Secretary of State takes a close interest in EU affairs and how they interfere with businesses in rural areas. What steps is he taking to ease that situation?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because it pertains to every business in the countryside. Through the red tape challenge, DEFRA will have reviewed all its regulations that emanate from the EU by the end of the year, and as a result there will be 12,000 fewer dairy inspections per year. Since 2011, for every £1 of compliance cost, we have removed £13.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
T2. News of a national pollinator strategy is welcome, but will the Minister confirm whether other relevant Departments as well as DEFRA will be involved in its development?
Bovine Tuberculosis
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is the most pressing animal health problem in the United Kingdom. The crisis facing our cattle farmers, their families and their communities cannot be overstated. Bovine tuberculosis is a devastating disease which threatens our cattle industry and presents a risk to other livestock, wildlife species such as badgers, domestic pets and humans.
This was once a disease isolated to small pockets of the country. It has now spread extensively through the west of England and Wales. The number of new herd breakdowns has doubled every nine years and in the last decade we have slaughtered 305,000 cattle across Great Britain. In 2012 in England alone, over 5.5 million bTB tests were performed leading to the slaughter of 28,000 cattle with the disease costing the taxpayer nearly £100 million. In the last 10 years bTB has cost the taxpayer £500 million. It is estimated that this will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked.
The Government are today publishing a consultation on a draft strategy for achieving official freedom from bTB in England. The strategy, which has been developed by the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England and the Bovine TB Eradication Advisory Group for England, draws upon successful approaches to eradicate bTB around the world, including Australia, New Zealand, Michigan in the Unites States of America and the Republic of Ireland. These demonstrate the importance of applying stringent cattle control measures in combination with tackling any significant reservoir of infection in wildlife, whether it is water buffalo, brush-tailed possums, white-tailed deer, or badgers. An additional factor which has contributed to their success is the fact that their programmes are either led by industry or delivered by Government and industry, with both parties contributing to the cost.
The strategy builds upon the measures applied currently including testing of cattle and other animals, additional controls in affected herds, and controls to address the reservoir of infection in badgers. The Government are proposing to work in partnership with the industry to develop risk-based packages using all available tools to protect low-risk areas of England, stop the geographical spread of bTB and bear down on the disease in endemic areas.
As well as using available tools the Government will continue to develop new ones. I have already achieved a major success in securing a concrete road map from the European Commission on the deployment of cattle vaccination. I am committed to meeting the minimum time scale but that is at least 10 years away. The Government will also continue to invest in the development of an oral badger vaccine and in new diagnostic tests for tuberculosis in cattle and badgers, which could pave the way for alternative approaches.
The final element is a consideration of options for governance, delivery and funding of the strategy. The New Zealand approach in particular, demonstrates the success of industry-led eradication strategies co-financed by industry and Government.
Tackling bTB will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. The strategy will deliver my ambition to reverse the rising trend in the worst affected areas of the country well before the end of this decade, achieve official freedom from bTB for parts of England on the same time scale and thereafter progressively rid the whole of England of bTB over 25 years. Our cattle industry and countryside deserve no less.