Marine Conservation Zones

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies. I requested this debate on marine conservation zones so that, in the short time available, other Members may also intervene; one or two have indicated that they would like to do so. My remarks are directed at the consultation on marine conservation zones and in particular at how the proposals affect Hythe bay in my constituency.

Everyone has an interest in a sustainable fishing industry, which can support many generations for decades to come, fishermen most of all, because they require a sustainable industry for their families and themselves to work in. That applies in particular to fishermen who work in areas such as Hythe bay, which is operated by the inshore fishing fleet of boats of less than 10 metres long. They are largely family businesses, and in Hythe bay we have a number of them along the 20 miles or so of the shore, in Dungeness, Hythe and Folkestone. Not only do they employ people directly in the fishing industry—catching in the boats and at sea—but onshore businesses rely on their work as well.

The fishing businesses sell directly to restaurants and food businesses in Kent and throughout the country and to the public. Such businesses include Griggs of Hythe, which was listed among Rick Stein’s food heroes, or M. & M. Richardson of Dungeness, which was on the 2009 national short list for the BBC good food awards for food retailer of the year. Fish landed in Folkestone and sold through Folkestone Trawlers supply many restaurants, in particular Mark Sargeant’s new restaurant in Folkestone, which is popular, and selling locally caught fish is a significant part of what it offers.

Hythe bay has been fished for thousands of years, probably for as long as men have been at sea in boats. Hythe and New Romney, both cinque port towns, have been represented continuously in Parliament since the first Parliament was called in the 13th century. Fishing is not only an industry for Hythe bay, but an important part of its culture and heritage, which is why I and others throughout the constituency who do not work directly in the fishing industry take the issue incredibly seriously and are as one in support of the fishermen in their concerns.

Those concerns have been brought about by the proposals published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the consultation on the marine conservation zones and where they are to be established around the country. A particular concern is that the proposed Hythe bay marine conservation zone is to be set at a “recover”, rather than a “maintain” level. The fishermen do not have any objection to strong environmental standards to maintain the important habitat in the bay, but they think that that is being done successfully already. They would be happy with a marine conservation zone set at a level of “maintain”, but not “recover”, which suggests that there is a problem at the moment, and would prevent direct commercial fishing in that area. That applies not only to commercial fishing, but to fishing by many of the individuals who sea fish as a pastime, which is popular in Hythe bay and a source of considerable tourism to the area.

The main purpose of the marine conservative zone, as set out as part of the consultation, is to preserve the spoonworm, which lives in the sand in Hythe bay. It is very small and many of those who have fished in those waters all their lives have never seen one, but this is the habitat that Natural England is seeking to protect and was the object of its concern in the consultation on marine conservative zones. However, recent surveys commissioned by the Government show that there has been a near 100% increase in the local spoonworm population over the past decade, and that numbers in sand samples have increased from 800 per square metre to 1,400 per square metre. That suggests a conservation success story in Hythe bay: the fishermen understand that the delicate balance of creatures living in the waters is important to the fish and shellfish they catch, and it is being properly maintained.

Folkestone Trawlers showed me the equipment that the fishermen use to fish in Hythe bay, which is not heavy dredging trawlers and nets. The relatively small boats use light nets that skim across the surface. They have no interest in churning up the sea bed. The association pointed out that movement of the sea bed is perfectly natural. This area of water in the English channel was heavily defended during the first and second world wars and it is not unusual, particularly during storms at sea, for ordnance or even old mines from those wars to come up to the surface undetected because of the natural movement of the sea bed. There seems to be little evidence at the moment that disturbance of the spoonworm, which Natural England is seeking to protect, should give rise to concern.

A second concern that is incredibly important to the geography of Hythe bay, which is the coast that guards Romney marshes, is that a large area of the marshes is below sea level. They are important for sea and coastal defences. Some are maintained by major sea walls, such as that at Dungeness, but many are maintained by management of the high water mark shore, which is largely shingle. The shingle banks are moved and replenished as part of the natural work of sea defence that the Environment Agency conducts throughout the year.

It is proposed that the landward boundary of the marine conservation zone being set at the high water mark would be within the area that needs to be maintained, and is considered to be part of the one-in-200-years risk that is maintained along that part of the coast. It could mean that special licences are required for that basic work of rebuilding the shingle sea defences along that part of the coast, or even that that work could be prohibited. If so, new flood defences would be required at perhaps much greater cost to the Environment Agency or the Government or, worse, homes that are currently protected by the work may be in jeopardy. Clearly, that would not be acceptable to residents following the consultation on the marine conservative zones.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I know nothing about my hon. Friend’s constituency, the case for the spoonworm, or the shingle banks, but having taken marine conservative legislation through Parliament as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I know that it was carefully put together. He is absolutely right that it is not obligatory to consult industries such as the fishing industry or to involve it in the management plans for the marine conservation zones. Does he agree that the Government must ensure that those industries are fully involved in the negotiation of the management plan which then underpins the marine conservation zones that he is eager to defend, as I am?

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and goes to the heart of the matter. Fishermen are not against marine conservation. Their livelihood depends on its being managed successfully, but they are worried about the specific proposals for Hythe bay and their impact, and do not believe that that level of intervention is justified. They have been concerned about the consultation process and whether the industry’s views have been listened to. I was shown an e-mail exchange by the Kent Wildlife Trust, which has supported marine conservation zones as constituted. It included a telling e-mail from a former fisheries liaison officer, who said of the consultation:

“The Hythe Bay”

marine conservation zone

“was originally proposed by a staff member of the Kent Wildlife Trust…during a Regional Stakeholder Group…meeting in London. The proposal received little support from other stakeholders and was totally opposed by all fishing industry representatives (this area being of vital importance to all the fishing fleets ranging geographically from Hastings to Ramsgate).”

He continued:

“At no stage during the stakeholder-involved Balanced Seas”

marine conservation zone

“process was there support for the whole proposed Hythe Bay”

marine conservation zone

“to be ‘recover’ as opposed to ‘maintain’”.

It is equally not the case that, during the consultation process, the fishermen opposed establishing any areas of protection. The local fishermen had proposed a zone between Dover and Folkestone that is not heavily fished, which they would be happy to set aside as a conservation zone. However, that recommendation was rejected as part of the consultation process and, instead, they were asked to accept restrictions in a zone that they were seeking particularly to defend and protect, and on which their livelihoods depend.

Other information from the Kent Wildlife Trust, which is part of its recommendation on Hythe bay, is telling about the conservation of the area and the success story there. It says:

“Hythe Bay is fortunate in having been the subject of a”

long-term

“series of surveys by the Environment Agency, with samples from the 20 point stations being processed by Heriot-Watt University Institute”

of Offshore Engineering. The surveys

“found an unusually rich assemblage of species to be present in the Bay”.

To my mind, that suggests a great success story of management of that water.

I believe we must have a very robust scientific case even to think about changing the status of that water because the livelihood of an entire fishing industry—the inshore fishing fleet in Hythe bay—depends on that consultation and what happens. What must not be allowed to happen is that people’s livelihood is jeopardised on someone’s hunch that some intervention is possible, based on surveys that were conducted not in Hythe bay, but elsewhere in United Kingdom waters, and not based on a robust study of the problem in those waters. People want a robust, clear scientific argument to be the basis of any decision, and unless that scientific argument can be made, the status of the conservation zone in Hythe bay should be set at “maintain” rather than “recover”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate. I should immediately apologise for the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who cannot be here this afternoon. In some recompense for his absence, I make it immediately plain to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that the Minister has offered to come and meet him, and to talk to his constituents to understand the factors in his constituency better. I hope that that goes some way towards entering into the necessary dialogue. Whether I am at liberty to extend that invitation on the Minister’s behalf to Suffolk Coastal as well, I am not sure, but knowing my hon. Friend, I am sure that he would have no problem entering discussions with the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

Perhaps it will be sensible if I outline the purpose of marine conservation zones, as we see it. The UK has a large marine area, which is rich in marine life and natural resource. Our seas are not just places of important biological diversity; they provide us with a variety of goods and services that are important for our social, economic and environmental well-being.

The Government are committed—in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders)—to contributing to the development of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. However, we have been clear that we want successful, well-managed sites, created in the right places in the right way, and not only lines on maps. We have to get this right so that our seas are sustainable, productive and healthy, and to ensure that the right balance is struck between conservation and important industries.

MCZs are a new form of marine protected area provided for under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The new MCZs are part of a wider agenda for protecting the important habitats and species in our seas. They will complement other marine protected areas —special protection areas, special areas of conservation, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites—to contribute to a coherent network in our seas. About 24% of English inshore waters, out to 12 nautical miles, and more than 8% of the UK sea area are already established as marine protected areas to protect important habitats and species. In the UK, there are already 107 special areas of conservation, 107 special protection areas for birds with marine components, and 377 coastal SSSIs.

That is the overall framework in which we are working. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe is concerned, quite properly, on behalf of his constituents, about the balance that we must strike in his area between the interests of his constituents and their economic future, and the need for effective ecological support. I understand that. I am also well aware of the concerns that are being expressed in relation to the proposed site at Hythe bay and the “recover” conservation objective. An official from my Department attended a local meeting during the consultation to hear those concerns. Officials are currently reviewing the responses to the consultation, including considering evidence provided, and we will respond to the consultation in the summer.

Let me go back to the overall picture. The four regional stakeholder projects did some very good work to provide an initial list of proposals. We do not think it appropriate to designate all 127 site recommendations straight away, because of weaknesses in the evidence base for many of the sites noted by the DEFRA-appointed science advisory panel in its review of the recommendations. However, we have since committed additional resources to plugging those gaps and, in the consultation, we proposed pressing ahead with the first 31 sites that we considered suitable for designation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will announce the timetable for future designations of MCZs later this year.

We are aware of the concerns that some people have raised about evidence standards. Adequate evidence is vital. Without it, it is impossible to define the management measures necessary and take effective conservation action. We want to see that happen quickly after designation. There will be no prospect of securing agreement from other member states to regulate the activities of their fishermen where this is required in waters beyond our 6-mile limits. We would also lack a proper justification for the regulatory burden placed on business or the enforcement and monitoring costs that fall on the taxpayer. That is why the evidence is essential.

The impact assessment that accompanied the consultation gave an indication of the costs and benefits of possible management measures for all the sites and provided a good indication of what might be expected. The management measures noted in the impact assessment were provided for illustrative purposes and to allow for the calculation of a range of potential cost implications for each site. Consultees were invited to comment on those in responding to the consultation and provide additional information to facilitate a better understanding of the possible implications of site designation and to help to refine associated costs. Management measures were not being consulted on at that stage. When an MCZ is designated, that does not automatically mean that economic or recreational activities on that site will be restricted. Restrictions on an activity will depend on the sensitivity of the species and habitats for which a site is designated to the activities taking place in that area and on the conservation objectives for those features.

[Andrew George]

I know that my hon. Friend cannot make up policy on the hoof in the absence of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but the Act says that the Government are required to consult on the designation, although it does not say that the Government or the MMO is required to consult on the management plan. Would the Minister be prepared to say that he will ensure that the Department makes sure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to be consulted on the management plan as it applies within the new MCZs?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would not make up policy on the hoof even if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was here, because that is not the way we do things in our Department. That said, the actual management measures will be drawn up separately and put in place by the relevant public authorities after designation and will be open for consultation, as appropriate, before they are implemented. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) that that is exactly what will happen.

This is particularly relevant to the point raised by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe, where there is a dispute about the evidence. I accept that the evidence at the moment is generic across the Hythe bay area. That is why we need more information about what is happening. Within the site, a rich sea pen and burrowing megafauna community is present in the soft sediment, which is presumed to be continuous across Hythe bay, based on data from sample points taken annually over a 10-year period. That is why the site is considered overall to be a biodiversity hot spot within the balanced seas area, but we need more information on exactly what is happening within that site.

Agricultural Wages Board

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

That is very interesting. I was just reading some of the responses to the consultation. One farmer said:

“I am a farmer with 3 employees. The annual AWB wage award has been an invaluable tool to help determine wage awards...We are overburdened with enthusiastic government departments issuing guidance rules & legislation...The annual guidance for the level of wage awards is one of the few useful tools”.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is quite clear that the proposal to abolish the AWB is not driven by a worry that it holds pay back or conditions down.

[Sir James Paice]

Yes, it is.

[Andrew George]

If the Government are arguing that it is being abolished to enhance pay and conditions, we will hear that from the Front Bench in a moment. Does the hon. Lady agree that we do not want simply to go the lowest common denominator?

[Mary Creagh]

I have been making that point repeatedly. The hon. Gentleman has 1,110 people in his constituency who will be affected. I am afraid that we heard some noises off from the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire; he said, “It is,” so it seems that coalition divisions are once more being exposed, as I thought they would be. I look forward to having a chat with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) in our Lobby during tonight’s vote.

I want to return to the role of the major supermarkets, which have silently supported the abolition of the AWB. Even the farm manager of the Duchy of Cornwall, which supplies Waitrose, responded to the consultation in support of abolition. The Duchy Originals website talks about food that “is good” and “does good” and says that it raises money for charity, but rural workers should not have to rely on charity to feed their families at the end of the week. Today’s figures on food banks, many of which are springing up in rural areas, give the lie to the fact that there is any overpayment in rural areas.

The supermarkets trumpet their commitment to fair trade, but why is that only for workers in developing countries? Why not here? They trumpet their corporate social responsibility programmes in communities, yet are silent when it comes to reducing pay in their own supply chains. I quote again from the responses to the consultation. A vegetable producer in the north-west said:

“We are unfortunately in an industry where we are seeing increasing pressure from retailers to lower prices of supply of produce,”

and added that

“some of our produce price returns are no higher in 2012 than they were over 10 years ago.”

This has real implications for the sustainability of the food supply chain and the UK’s self-sufficiency, which has already fallen to about 55%, making us much more vulnerable to global shocks. The supermarkets have got to start thinking long term. We supported the Government’s creation of the groceries code adjudicator, although we would have preferred an ombudsman. We want fairness in the supply chain, but that does not stop with the horticultural businesses. It has to feed down to the level of the individual workers as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by telling him that I do not have an estate, and that I do not have any direct employees who take the agricultural wage.

I shall take up my case again. In addition, I want to give businesses the tools they need to have the confidence to invest, adopt and benefit from innovative technologies and farming practices.

[Andrew George]

Those tools will be extremely helpful, especially for research and development, but in relation to today’s debate, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether he thinks that agricultural wages and conditions will go up or down as a result of the abolition of the AWB?

[Mr Paterson]

As I said earlier, I am absolutely confident that there is a great future for the industry, and that there will be an increase in demand for labour, which will create pressure to drive wages up. Already, under the AWB, the vast majority of people in the industry are paid well above the minimum wage and well above the AWB minimums.

Another key area in growing the economy is the roll-out of superfast broadband to rural areas, and increasingly wider access to 3G and 4G networks will also make it easier for farm and rural businesses to operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I am not the Government, so I cannot respond to that question. Had I been the Government, I would have stuck to their rules and standards for consultation. They did not.

What did the Government do? Did they conform to Cabinet Office standards for consultation? Did they carry out an extensive 12-week consultation, avoiding main holiday periods, and making extensive efforts to ensure that all those affected, as well as all those with an interest, had an opportunity to take part? Did they carefully consider the outcomes of consultation in their final decision? Did they consult the Welsh Government, whose agreement was needed for abolition? They did none of those things; they came up with an extremely shabby plan to get round them.

The Government redefined the Agricultural Wages Board as a “regulatory reform” to avoid the necessity of even trying to get the co-operation of the Welsh Government, and they cobbled together a four-week consultation that failed to meet their own standards on consultations, issued by the Cabinet Office. Even then, 63% of those who responded to that sham and shameful consultation disagreed with abolition, so they were simply ignored.

Having failed to carry out a proper consultation, the Government decided to attach an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and pushed it through the House without debate. When the Government hold something that is clearly a sham consultation over four weeks instead of 12, ignore their own standards, and then ignore the results of the consultation, is it any surprise that people question, and are suspicious of, any public consultation?

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The problem was not just the lack of consultation with the public, but the lack of consultation with the House. Those of us who were engaged in the passage of the Public Bodies Bill expected that there would be a full debate on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in the future but, whether through cock-up or conspiracy, we were denied that opportunity.

[Pat Glass]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a decent way for a Government to behave. Hon. Members start to feel superior about foreign Governments that we consider illegitimate when we see them behaving in this way. We criticise such behaviour in others, and it is not what the House and the country expect from our Government.

Why are the Government so desperate to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board that they will breach their own consultation and deny debate in the House? Is the board excessively expensive? Does it act illegally? Is it so far beyond reform that the only way to deal with it is by abolishing it in this high-handed manner? It is a public body that costs very little, yet decides the terms and conditions of agricultural workers. It sets rates for young workers, including those under 16, who are not covered by the minimum wage. It also sets out maximum deductions for tied housing, which affects up to a third of farm workers.

Why are the Government so determined to use whatever means possible to abolish the board? Their only answer is that it is too bureaucratic for farmers, so implementing decent wages and conditions for workers on top of all that form filling to claim EU farm subsidy payments is clearly too bureaucratic. The Government argue that abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, and hence the agricultural minimum wage regime, will simplify employment practices and remove an unnecessary regulatory burden. The problem for farmers is therefore nothing whatsoever to do with the predatory practices of the supermarkets, but all about the time it takes to read the annual bulletin from the Agricultural Wages Board.

The Government’s impact assessment shows clearly that workers’ wages will fall by up to £34.5 million a year over 10 years as a result of abolition. For new contracts, the change in the value of annual leave, if employers implement statutory terms rather than those under the agricultural workers order, will be up to £13 million a year over 10 years. Farmers’ employment costs that represent transfer payments to the Government and others will fall as wages fall, so the Exchequer will also be hit, and that is before we consider the cost to the public purse of paying the working benefits that agricultural workers will need as their wages fall.

The north-east is the region that has the smallest number of people working in agriculture. That is partly because it is the smallest region and partly because it has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. Nevertheless, 3,360 people in the north-east work on the land. The abolition of the board will have a direct impact on 60 people in my constituency. If we force agricultural workers off the land and cannot attract younger workers, just who do Ministers think will fill these jobs? Let me tell them: it will be people from overseas.

According to the Government’s figures, the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will take £260 million out of the rural economy over 10 years. It will take money out of rural communities, village shops, pubs and post offices, and away from everyone who relies on those businesses. Rural communities have already lost local buses, and the Government are set on a national funding formula for schools that has no place for a small schools premium, which will result in the closure of rural schools—hon. Members heard it here first. The abolition of the board will lead to lower wages, poorer rural housing and an increase in the number of immigrant workers on the land. The way in which the Government have brought about the abolition does them no credit whatsoever, yet the real tragedy is not the way this discredited Government have acted, but the real impact that their policy will have on rural communities such as mine throughout the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

This is a difficult debate, and I am grateful to the Labour Opposition for having brought it forward. In a point of order after the debate on Lords amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill last week, I said how strongly I opposed our having had neither a debate or a vote on this significant matter. As I indicated earlier in an intervention, we had only limited opportunities to discuss the abolition of the AWB, among a large number of other measures, in our debates on the Public Bodies Act 2011. We were reassured throughout those debates that the House would have ample opportunity to debate the issue and come to a conclusion on it at a later stage, when a specific proposal was brought forward under the powers in schedule 1 to that Bill. I come at this debate on the basis of a significant disagreement with how the Government have handled the matter and frustration that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Nevertheless, it is important to have the debate.

I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and did not get the impression that the AWB was being abolished because it was holding back wages and conditions for agricultural workers. In fact, I still have a strong impression that the opposite is true. I know that there has been a lot of speculation about the outcome of the abolition, but I am clear that it is not happening to enhance agricultural workers’ pay and conditions.

I also find it difficult to understand the impression that the Government are giving, given the slogan “We’re all in this together”, which they adopted in their first Budget and which I approve of entirely. One good proposal from the European Commission on the common agricultural policy is to cap the single farm payment at €300,000 and disburse the money saved in different ways. That could have been on the agenda under the previous Administration 10 years ago, but we are where we are. On the one hand, the Government are content to pay cheques of more than £1 million to large farmers who, frankly, usually do not need it. On the other hand, I fear the abolition of the AWB will mean that more public funds need to be deployed to pay the wages of agricultural workers who find their conditions and wages cut, or to pay benefits to those whose standard of living falls below a certain level. In both cases, a lot of public money is involved, in one case enriching large farmers and in the other subsidising poverty in our rural areas. I am not content with that contrast, and I will draw conclusions about it at the end of my comments.

The abolition of the AWB was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. It was in the Conservative party manifesto, however, and indeed the NFU made it clear in the lead-up to the last general election that it was very much in favour of the abolition of the AWB. That was certainly the case in my area, so my experience contrasts with that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on that point. One of the NFU’s key asks was the abolition of the AWB, yet when I raised the issue with farmers, I found that a significant number of them were opposed to that policy. They were opposed to it for the reasons the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has outlined, such as that it would leave them in the position of having to negotiate individually. The collective approach through the AWB provided them with a framework that enabled them to avoid considerable embarrassment and difficulty or having to buy-in human resources consultants to resolve things. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is right: few small-scale farmers employ agricultural workers, but those who do will encounter great difficulties if they have to negotiate these arrangements with their workers.

I have regularly worked with the NFU over many years, not least on the creation of the groceries code adjudicator, on which the Government must be warmly congratulated. I have worked with it on a wide range of issues, and often agree with it and stand shoulder to shoulder with it—but not, I am afraid, on this issue. Regrettably, on matters such as this the NFU tends to resort to becoming a large farmers’ union, rather than an all farmers’ union; I have accused it of that to its face, so I am not saying this behind its back.

Many pertinent issues have already been raised in our debate, and I shall not repeat the concerns expressed about the impact this move will have, and about the Government simply saying, “We have the national minimum wage, so we no longer need an AWB.”

[Mr Spencer]

Can the hon. Gentleman define for me what a large farm is? Is an intensively farmed three-acre poultry farm a large farm? Is a 200-acre dairy farm a large farm?

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman might be drawing me into a different debate, but he knows about standard man days—I do not want that to be interpreted as a sexist term—and the number of jobs a holding generates, or requires in order to be maintained. That is calculated irrespective of the acres covered, because as his question implies, especially in less favoured areas—some of which fall within my constituency—there are geographically very large farms that have low productivity. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, some farms that are small in acreage are intensively farmed and have high levels of productivity. He makes a good point, but the point I was making about larger farms was in the context of the fact that some—although admittedly very few—receive hundreds of thousands of pounds, or even over £1 million pounds, in public subsidy. He cannot deny that that is the case. Those sums are given to a very few large farms as a result of the arrangements through the single farm payment.

I regret finding myself in this position. I know the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), has been handed a hospital pass with this issue since taking up his post, and I am enormously grateful to him for the work he is already doing through his conversations and meetings with people in the sector. Despite this regrettable decision, he is working with them to try to identify opportunities for voluntary agreements within the sector. I hope that will serve to provide some of the protections which I fear will be lost to agricultural workers as a result of this Government decision.

There is something further that I regret. Normally, I feel enormously disappointed by Opposition day debates, because they usually degenerate into rather tribal, finger-pointing and teasing events, in which it is not possible to take the Opposition line on an issue because of how the debate has been handled. I regret that on this occasion—partly as a result of how the Government have handled the matter so far, by not giving us an opportunity for a debate or a vote—after a considered debate, I will be voting against the Government in the Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I worked in the farming industry for 10 years and was involved in this debate when the issue was last discussed some 20 years ago—I will come back to that in a moment. It is worth noting—this has been alluded to by some, including the Secretary of State—that in the early ’90s, all other remaining wage councils and wages boards were scrapped. There was no rationale for them. Some 26 remained in about 1993, and all were abolished. Many covered sectors such as hotels, catering, retail, hairdressing and clothing manufacturing, but as the Secretary of State said, there were also some rather odd-looking boards such as those for the ostrich and fancy feather industry, or rope and net manufacturers. One has only to read lists of some of the industries to which the boards applied to realise that the whole concept is anachronistic and out of date.

[Andrew George]

I should have said that, like my hon. Friend, I too was an agricultural worker and worked on our farm. He says that the agricultural sector is the one sector that has been left alone, but it is also the sector into which the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was introduced, which demonstrates that it requires some underpinning with regulation.

[George Eustice]

Equally, we could say that the introduction of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority deals with some of the working conditions problems that Opposition Members have highlighted in a way that makes the AWB ever more redundant.

To return to the 1993 debate, the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Gillian Shephard, held a consultation. A small number of us in the farming industry said that the AWB should go; that it was out of date and anachronistic; that farming should not be treated as a special case; and that the AWB read like something from the 1950s. It tended to be the larger, more forward-thinking farmers who took that view, led by a large salads company, the G’s group, which was run by Guy Shropshire. It was not one of my most successful campaigns. The Government had some 3,500 responses to the consultation, of which only 11 were in favour of abolition. I was one of those 11. That highlights the massive swing in opinion. Opposition Members have highlighted the current consultation, but 40% of people who responded to it have said that abolition is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

We have an atomised work force. There has been a progressive change in employment patterns from what was typically the case 50 years ago to smaller, more flexible work forces with a lot of contract labour and very few people being permanently employed on farms. Having said that, the statistics show that the majority of those covered by the AWB still need the minimum standards that the board lays down. I will come to that point in a moment.

I do not accept that the board is an historical anachronism—far from it—not least because half the work force is aged 55 and over and we still need to recruit and retain people to work on the land. Nor is it true to suggest that the board was set in aspic and never changed. Over the years, as a consequence of some very good dialogue, a modernisation process took place.

The proposal for the AWB’s abolition is fundamentally wrong for four reasons. The first involves fair treatment. This is not just about minimum standards. Crucially, it is also about other conditions of employment, which really matter. The simple reality is that the difference between the statutory arrangements and the board’s arrangements will be that, in future, it will be possible for a farmer to pay someone who is off sick £81.60 a week less. Farming is a dangerous occupation for some, and we often see high levels of sickness as a consequence of the work.

Secondly, abolishing the AWB is an inefficient way of proceeding. I asked the House of Commons Library to research the costs of the board, and I was surprised by the answer. I knew that it was lean and effective, but even I was surprised to learn that its administrative costs were £179,000 a year and its enforcement costs were £150,000. That fully functioning Agricultural Wages Board therefore cost a grand total of £329,000.

Now, however, we shall see tens of thousands of negotiations taking place throughout the agriculture sector. I accept that, depending on the nature of the employment pattern, people can often get paid more than the level strictly laid down by the AWB. That happens all the time, as a result of a demand for a particular skill. However, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was right to say that, other than in circumstances of exceptional demand, it is convenient for farmers to use the framework laid down by the board. Farmers have said that to me, too. In future, however, we shall see negotiation after negotiation consuming the time and effort of our farmers.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested earlier that farmers were used to sitting down and negotiating with suppliers of feed, seeds and so on, but there is of course a framework involved in those cases as well, and those farmers know what the framework is when they commence their negotiations. If there is a total free-for-all, we run the risk of creating a race to the bottom.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be concerned about a race to the bottom. There are tens of millions of people on the continent who are desperate for work, and the last thing we want to see as a consequence of these proposals is a race to the bottom. My experience suggests that even where farmers depart from the AWB rates of pay—and they often do—it is helpful to have a clear framework and starting point, varied as appropriate in particular circumstances, depending on the skill level required, for example. Something very similar to that was put to me.

My third concern is the impact on local economies. There is no question but that we run the risk of taking out badly needed spending power from our hard-pressed local economies. It is interesting to note the Department’s impact assessment of the costs over a 10-year period: £260 million was, I think, the figure referred to.

Fourthly, we have heard time and again that “other wages councils have been abolished, have they not, and have not been reinstated”. This board is, however, unique in terms of its scope—including, crucially, the issue of tied accommodation. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said earlier about the criteria: fit for human habitation, safe and secure, a bed for sole use, drinking water and sanitation. Some might say that all that sounds a bit 19th century, particularly the idea of a bed for one’s own use. They would not say that if they had seen the sort of places I saw when I was deputy general secretary of the old T and G and then of Unite. I saw some of the most shameful accommodation—and not just for those employed by gangmasters, as it was sometimes for those employed by farmers. The great thing about the Agricultural Wages Board is that it lays down very clear basic minimum standards for the kind of accommodation that I hope we would all like to see agricultural workers occupying in our countryside.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he is basically highlighting that he can give no examples of abuses of the groceries code of practice.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I respect the consistent position that the hon. Gentleman takes on this matter. However, he cannot ignore the fact that in 2008, the Competition Commission concluded that supermarkets were transferring excessive risk and unexpected costs to suppliers, and that that was having a detrimental effect not only on the suppliers, but on consumers. It proposed the introduction of the code, but made it clear that on its own, the code would not be sufficient. A referee was needed to enforce it, otherwise no complaints would be brought forward. Simply saying that we have to find the evidence ignores the Competition Commission’s conclusions.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman, likewise, has taken a consistent view on these matters. In fact, he has been so consistent that he wanted an adjudicator before a new code of practice had even been introduced, let alone bedded down. He has always been in favour of this solution, even when there was no problem.

The Office of Fair Trading controls the groceries code of practice and is there to investigate any abuses of fair trade within the sector. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, he can take it to the Office of Fair Trading. It has all the powers that it needs to investigate any cases. The problem is that there are no such examples.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. The Grocery Market Action Group, which I am privileged to chair on behalf of a large number of organisations, gave evidence to the Competition Commission inquiry. That is one reason why it came forward with the clear and firm conclusions that are now being carried forward by the Government. That is the right thing to do.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman keeps making the same assertion. He should take the matter to the Office of Fair Trading. That is the body that oversees the groceries code of practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend asks a good question and strikes at the heart of why the Bill is a nonsense. There is no evidence that the groceries code is being abused. Nobody has yet been able to come forward with any such case. They all give reasons why they cannot do so, but the fact remains that there are none. There is no evidence that the code is not being applied properly.

[Andrew George]

As the competition authorities have repeatedly found, there is a significant climate of fear in the sector. That is why it is highly unlikely that anyone will use the code until the adjudicator is in place. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at clauses 4, 10 and 12 in particular, which should give him the reassurance that I believe he is looking for. Potentially powerful suppliers will not abuse their power, because of the reasonableness that is a golden line running through the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but again, I do not want to get on to parts of the Bill that are subject to amendments in future groups, so I will resist that temptation.

Supermarkets can operate properly only with the good will of their suppliers. There are often cases in which, for example, a supplier has a problem at short notice—we have seen that recently with the issue of horsemeat. Things have to be taken off sale at short notice and production dries up quickly. That happens when foreign bodies are found in certain products, which have to be taken off the shelves. A supermarket can operate only if it then has other suppliers that it can go to and ask to fill the void at short notice. It goes to another supplier and says, “We’ve got some empty shelves and a lack of supply. Can you come and help us out?” Do people really think that the supplier would help out a supermarket chain that was trying to bankrupt it or screw it into the ground? Of course it would not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood made the point that the limits in my new clauses may impede small business at some point in future. However, new clause 2 specifies a turnover of £1 billion a year, and all I can say is that, my word, supermarkets must be a force for good if they can turn small and medium-sized enterprises into firms with a £1 billion-a-year turnover. That should be something to celebrate, not to criticise supermarkets for. Suppliers would be delighted to be companies of that scale. I am not entirely sure which ones in his constituency he is thinking of, but if he has any examples of firms that he is worried may have a turnover of £1 billion a year, I would like to meet them to find out what their fears are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I am going to make some progress. These are the same Members who were happy for the debate on three groups of amendments to be restricted to three hours, and they now want to try to prolong the debate for as long as possible. If they still want to intervene at a later point I will try and allow it, but I am sure other Members want to speak.

The Bill was sold on its supposed support for small suppliers. If that is what it is about, let us make that support clear in the Bill. New clause 1 states that the adjudicator could not have cases referred to it by, or on behalf of, companies with a turnover exceeding £500 million a year. New clause 2 is exactly the same, but puts the figure at £1 billion a year. To try to be as helpful as possible, I have done some investigation to try to work out what sort of companies would be covered by my new clauses, so that we can see what we are talking about. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether the purpose of the Bill is to help those companies.

Returning to my point, suppliers hope the Bill will help their bottom line. If it does not, as a company there is no point to it. That is what they are hoping for. Who pays for an increase in the bottom line of a supplier? It will not be the supermarkets. I am sure the Opposition believe the idea that supermarkets’ profits are going to be eaten into, that there will be some kind of magical transfer of wealth from the supermarket to the supplier, and that the supermarket will give up its profits and it will all feed through and go to the small farmers. It does not work like that. What will happen is this: supermarkets work to very, very low margins. The whole purpose of supermarkets is to cut the price and increase the volume—that is how they look to increase their profit. If there is a benefit to the suppliers’ bottom line it will only come from one person: the consumer. Consumers will end up paying more for their products—that is what the Bill will deliver.

If people want to tell their constituents that they are voting for them to pay more for their products, I am happy for them to do so—at least it would be honest, at least they would be saying, “Look, because we want to look after suppliers, you’ll have to pay more for your shopping, but we think it’s a price worth paying.” I would respect that. It is a perfectly respectable view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

We all know that that is the case, but my point is that if companies such as Heinz, Walkers, Nestlé or Coca-Cola feel that a supermarket has breached a contract with them, they can take the case to court. We do not need the state to set up an adjudicator to decide which side is right. As it happens, I am quite relaxed about supermarkets trying to screw those big suppliers into the ground to get the best possible deal. Those suppliers are making massive profits, and I would prefer to see that money benefiting my constituents rather than adding to the bottom line of those multinational companies.

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will let the hon. Gentleman explain why he wants to add to the bottom line of those multinational companies.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is, in truth, arguing for the abolition of all the competition authorities. That seems to be the direction that his argument is taking. In fact, clause 4 makes it clear that the decision to investigate would be made if the adjudicator had reasonable grounds for suspecting a breach of the code, and clause 10 makes it clear that any supplier who brought a complaint that was “vexatious or…without merit” would be required to pay some or all of the costs involved. Paragraph 48 of the Competition Commission’s final report stated that it envisaged that the groceries code adjudicator

“would prioritize the resources of its office to focus on those disputes and complaints concerning suppliers without market power over and above those concerning suppliers of major branded products that have market power.”

It is clear that such decisions must be made by the adjudicator, and I am perfectly content that the Bill has the capacity to ensure that that description—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but interventions seem to be becoming progressively longer. There is no problem about their frequency, but there is about their length. We must now hear from Mr Philip Davies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Paice]

The honest answer is that, no, I did not come across such evidence, but it may well have been happening and I just did not know about it, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley rightly said, those very big suppliers can look after themselves. I am not arguing against what has been said. Indeed, I would have had some sympathy for new clause 2 and the £1 billion threshold if I thought my hon. Friend’s motives were justified, but as a result of the rest of his argument I completely lost any support for it that I might otherwise have had. I also think the Bill as currently drafted will militate against big organisations acting in such ways. The Bill is designed to deal with problems that we all agree arise, and which tend to fall on small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Andrew George]

I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments. Following the logic of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Shipley, the conclusion we would draw is that the Bill should look both ways, as it were. I have drawn that conclusion and would like the Bill to reflect that, by seeking to ensure there is fair dealing across the supermarket supply chain, so that if a supplier became too powerful, complaints could be made the other way.

[Sir James Paice]

My hon. Friend is entirely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

Again, there is a misunderstanding of what will happen. We are talking about very large companies that are negotiating with very large companies. They both have an equal amount of commercial muscle, so no one party will be able to bully the other. That is quite important. The adjudicator is meant to get involved as a referee and negotiate when one large party abuses a smaller party and uses its commercial muscle to push something through.

[Andrew George]

I support the arguments that my hon. Friend is making. He knows that this is a dynamic and creative market in which a number of intermediaries and subsidiaries have been created with a turnover of more than £1 billion, which could be used as a means of sidestepping the legislation if new clause 2 was accepted.

[Mr Spencer]

I recognise that. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has worked on this matter since before I became a Member. Perhaps that is something that the adjudicator could look at as we move forward. There is this ability to put a film between parties and cause an issue. That comes back to small suppliers, who supply the middlemen.

New clause 3 would cause the Bill to expire after seven years. It would be disappointing if it did so. Using the analogy of a football match, if we get to half time and the referee has not needed to issue a yellow card, no one suggests that we do not need a referee in the second half.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

Following the contribution from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), may I say that despite the consensus, which is often considered a weakness, the Bill is an excellent example of how a measure can be significantly improved during the parliamentary process?

In congratulating the many people who have been involved in the Bill’s progress, my hon. Friend the Minister of State may have left out the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). During his brief sojourn in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, he introduced a very significant change, which enabled the adjudicator to initiate an inquiry on the basis of market intelligence.

I add my thanks to all those involved. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has been very kind, and I hope I did not bite his hand off when he was offering those thanks. I should also like to thank the previous Member for South East Cornwall, Colin Breed, who highlighted the issue more than a decade ago. There are many more people who should be thanked. I have met the adjudicator-elect, Christine Tacon, and was very impressed.

If the supermarkets have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. They should embrace this, because I believe that the adjudicator can do something to improve fair trading in this country.

EU Fisheries Negotiations

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I hope my hon. Friend would concede that I am on record as having faced criticism from some quarters for reallocating quota to the under-10 metre sector. I strongly believe that fishing opportunity is a national resource, and this rather bizarre business is about the allocation of that national resource. I firmly believe that the under-10 metre sector is important socially as well as economically, and I will continue to do what I can to make its life better.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on both what he has achieved and the manner in which he has conducted the negotiations. He mentioned the context of the common fisheries policy reform. Will he reassure the House that his counterparts in Europe will respect the fact that we are introducing marine conservation zones that extend beyond the six and 12-mile limits, to ensure that British fishermen are not constrained in areas where foreign vessels are not?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is really important. I am not in the business of proposing restrictions for our vessels only to see vessels from other countries entering the restricted areas in our waters and fishing in a way that our fishermen cannot. We must have the matter agreed at European level, and I have already had discussions with my French counterpart on it. We will have further discussions to ensure that it is completely clear at every level that we are not imposing a restriction on ourselves that will not be recognised by other countries.

Fisheries

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Doran]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. He was good enough to tell me about that issue yesterday and I will refer to it at length later in my speech, but I thank him for that contribution.

Returning to the problem of safety in the North sea and the UK fishing industry, I have the most recent stats from the marine accident investigation branch for 2011, which show that there were 58 major injuries or fatalities in the industry, and eight of those were fatalities, so the rate is 7.5 per 1,000 people employed. It is more than twice the number of the next most dangerous industry, water and waste management, which has an accident rate of 3.3 per 1,000, and it is three and half times as many as the construction industry, which is often quoted as the most dangerous industry, with an accident rate of 2.2 per 1,000 people employed. All those figures are based on the Office for National Statistics business register and employment survey. According to the MAIB, the number of marine vessels lost was 24, which was a significant increase on the previous two years—in 2009, 15 were lost, while 14 were lost in 2010. Those are shocking figures.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the points that he is making. Does he agree that it is very important for Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to talk to Ministers in the Department for Transport, particularly in circumstances where the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is planning to close fishing vessel survey offices—for example, in Newlyn in my constituency —without consulting the fishing industry? It is important that there is consultation, as the industry wants to work with the regulators to ensure that safety in the industry is improved.

[Mr Doran]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good and valuable point. There needs to be much more co-ordination between Ministers, and I will come to that point later.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I pay special tribute to the families of all lost fishermen, the rescue services and the work of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen.

I shall concentrate on area VII total allowable catches and quotas, because other hon. Members will speak about other areas. The proposed 15% increase for area VIIe Dover sole is welcome. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advised an increase of 23%, but the restriction in the Commission’s multi-annual management plan would not allow it. Plaice is responding well to the same regime, and although ICES advised an increase of 26%, the Commission has proposed an increase of only 6%, despite its regulation on plaice, on page 6 of the proposal, stating that Channel plaice can be raised by 18%. It seems bizarre.

The proposed cuts that will particularly affect south-west fleets in 2013 include: 20% cut to anglerfish; a 32% cut to northern hake; and a 20% cut to megrim. Part of the reason for that was Spain’s refusal to provide its commercial data. Why should all member states be penalised because of the irresponsible action of one member state? There is also a proposed cut of 55% to area VIIb-k haddock. A mass recruitment occurred in 2009, but the total allowable catch has not risen to reflect it. The Commission is proposing a further massive cut, which will result in a greater increase in discards of gadoids, which die anyway when they are discarded. The maximum sustainable yield has increased year on year.

Page 5 of the 2012 quota management rules states that the south-west mackerel handline quota is ring-fenced. Will the Minister reassure me and confirm that that will continue in 2013? Although some of the quota is unused and has recently been used for swaps, the security that the ring-fence provides the fishermen who use that traditional, environmentally friendly and sustainable method of capture must be maintained.

[Andrew George]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue—I, too, have written to the Minister about it—and I entirely agree with her. Does she share my concern that the proposal is being made under the noses of the fishermen, who are not being consulted at all about its potentially devastating impact?

[Sheryll Murray]

I completely share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

On the CFP review of regional management, although a sea basin approach is welcome, we must all remember that it will be for a limited period, because article 6(1) of the new regulation states that Union vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Union waters. In his bid to secure legitimate sea basin management, has the Minister explored the deletion of that article from the proposal?

On the 12-mile limit, I am delighted that the European Parliament and the Council have adopted a regulation to extend the arrangements for a further two years, thus avoiding a repetition of the situation that arose in January 1983 and the subsequent case of Regina v. Kirk in the European Court of Justice. The Labour party claimed in 2002 that it had secured a roll-over of the 12-mile limit, but that was untrue. According to article 100 of our act of accession, the original agreement referred to the position as on 31 January 1971. That position, which was set out in the London convention of 1964, remained until the present 2002 regulation, in which it was changed. Fishermen from specific member states are now allowed access to specific areas for specific stocks, as is set out in an annexe to the regulation. I hope that the Opposition will apologise to UK fishermen for that error.

The restriction of access to member states within a certain band could help our fishermen using small—under 10 metre—vessels, who are struggling with their quota share. Action on that matter was yet another failure by the Labour party. Please will the Minister take soundings over the next two years to secure a better deal on access to our 12-mile limit? Newer member states do not have such shared access.

I understand the industry’s concern about how a discard ban would affect it, but I believe that the discarding of marketable fish is a wicked waste of healthy protein. I have often raised the matter of small gurnards, which are fished off my constituency, and I am delighted to inform hon. Members that one of my fish merchants is now using them as an ingredient in the Lipsmacking Liskeard pies range. The fish version is the Shipwreck pie, which is quite delicious. I certainly recommend that hon. Members try it should they ever happen to be passing through Liskeard.

Some of my fishermen are very worried about the implications of marine protected areas. Although I acknowledge that Natura 2000 sites cannot take account of socio-economics, the MPAs that the Minister will designate under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 can do so. Will the Minister reassure me that any consultation on the selected sites, which he is due to announce, will allow leisure and commercial fishermen to put their case should they feel disadvantaged?

I want to mention an MPA that has been the subject of a case in the European Court of Justice relating to Spain and the southern Gibraltar waters. Having declared an MPA in the southern Gibraltar territorial waters, the UK registered it with the European Commission, but Spain has contested those waters. Indeed, Spain included them in its own, much larger MPA, which it has registered with the Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

The Minister nods in approval, but I hope he understands my rationale.

The time scales of politics and fishery management are as distinct as beef and mackerel. The two things exist in completely different time frames. Ministers and politicians usually exist in very short time frames, and the decisions taken by fisheries Ministers are often not felt for at least five or 10 years, which is usually one or even two parliamentary terms and fisheries Ministers later. We have, therefore, Ministers who end up picking up the pieces of previous poor decisions.

I would also like to consider the elimination of catch quotas, and instead to implement controls on the amount of fishing. The intention would be to replace catch quotas with limits on fishing efforts that would help the fishing industry. Landing quotas do not stop fish being killed, legally at least. By limiting fishing effort, the Government can prevent fish stocks from being killed, and allow them to live longer and produce more offspring.

[Andrew George]

I do not want this to become a Cornish debate between Cornish Members, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to present a polarisation between fishermen and environmentalists he has perhaps misunderstood the issue. Increasingly these days fishermen are working with scientists, and the way forward is to encourage them to work together towards a sustainable fishing industry. It is not that fishermen want to fish the seas out; they are interested in a sustainable fishing industry for the future.

[Dr Offord]

I am obviously giving that impression, but I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not my intention. I do not believe that that is what fishermen in this country do. Hopefully, I will provide that reassurance as I make several more points.

A fourth reform that I would like to see, and which has been mentioned already, is to require fishermen to keep what they catch, as occurs in countries such as Norway. We all agree that discarding fish is a tragic waste. Most of the fish that are caught are dead when they are returned to the sea, so even when we comply with quotas nothing is achieved, because all we do is throw back dead fish. For years, EU regulators insisted that vessels should throw back over-quotas because otherwise over-catching would be rewarded.

I believe, and I hope that this point provides some reassurance, that such a reform could be a powerful conservation measure. If we provide and enforce limits on fishing effort, the proposal will work, because different catches are worth different amounts, depending on size and on the species caught. Crews become more selective, choosing the target species that make them more money, and they also supply low-value catch species for other uses such as fishmeal or, as we have heard, stargazy pie. Methods that allow greater selectivity include modifying fishing gear and choosing fishing grounds more selectively, and the reform would become an economic incentive, achieved through best practice.

I would also like the Minister to consider requiring fishermen to use gear modified to reduce by-catch. For years, Government laboratories have shown that they have designed such gear, but experience shows that the industry is reluctant to change its gear because of the financial implications, and possibly because the new gear could reduce the total catch. The only way to enforce such a change would be through legislation.

I would also like the Minister to comment on banning or restricting the most damaging catching methods. Some fishing gear causes untold environmental damage. Bottom trawl nets crush and sever bottom-living species. Gear used to trawl in deep water is heavier than that used in shallower water. The heavy steel rollers on the ground rope and the 5-tonne plates that hold the net open cause irreparable damage but the practice does not have to be universally banned. Large expanses of shallow-water continental shelf are dominated by gravel, sand and mud, which is perfect for trawling, and repeated trawling actually favours some communities of animals and plants that are resilient to its effect. Farmers plough their fields, but not every single year, and the same could occur in parts of the ocean. I have no problem with trawling, but I believe that we should establish how often it can occur.

Finally, I would like the Minister to consider implementing extensive networks of marine reserves that are off limits to fishing. We have already heard one Member’s concerns about the economic conditions. Earlier today, I heard the Minister speak about the number of conservation areas that are being considered. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said that she would like to see those that are rejected replaced by others. I would like to see the number increased. The total number of 127 represents only 27% of the UK’s coastline. This could be an economic opportunity, rather than a problem for fishermen.

I am a great supporter of the fishing industry, and I want it to continue to be profitable, vibrant and safe. Many Members have mentioned the terrible health and safety record in the industry, which is due to the very dangerous nature of fishing. I would also like to see the opportunity to improve the fish stocks in this country, and we can do that unilaterally, away from the European Union and not as part of the CFP. I believe that it is possible to achieve those ends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Lady is very well versed in the fisheries in my constituency, and I should tell Members that her son, Paul, fishes from my island and fishes very well, and has done so for a number of years. She makes an absolutely great point about the abundance and wealth of great food that comes from the west of the Hebrides. That is not properly appreciated in the UK, and that food often goes to markets in France and Spain.

At this point, I should point out that there is a big infrastructure behind that industry, and there are lorries transporting the shellfish. Tragically, about a month ago, a young man from my island, Michael MacNeil, who had taken shellfish to France, was killed coming back along the road from Bordeaux to Angoulême with his empty lorry. It was a very sad day for the island and for the wider fishing community, which he knew very well.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the issue of non-targeted dogfish, or spurdog. I should probably declare an interest, because I fished it as a targeted species in 1995, so I am perhaps partly responsible for its ensuing difficulties. They regularly appear in the Minches every winter, and they are worth about £60 a box. Sometimes on a tour, a boat can dump up to 10 to 15 boxes of these good, healthy fish because there is no quota to land them. If the boat did not have to dump them, they could be worth about £600 to £900, which could give the boat a good extra margin. The fish could be sold as rock salmon, as they used to be in a number of places, rather than, unfortunately, ending up on the rocks. I hope I am not making that plea in vain, because in the past, I have raised the issue of haddock in a debate such as this.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is aware, no doubt, that those fish are extremely slow-growing. They do not reach sexual maturity until their teens and there are two years of pregnancy. With a falling quota there is clearly a need to manage things with intelligence and skill. We need to be concentrating on much more selective gear, to avoid catching them as by-catch.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and fishermen do their best to avoid them, because they are a nuisance for them. However, it is heartbreaking to throw healthy fish back into the sea dead. We had a similar situation with haddock in the Minches during the cod recovery plan, a couple of years ago, which ironically meant haddock being dumped, reducing the amount going to market. Then demand was inevitably placed on cod, which was nonsensical. The good news was that after that period, and the resulting outcry, the haddock quota was increased by 200%. I look forward to similar action on dogfish. Landing it should be allowed, with the safeguard that it is non-targeted by-catch; the fish are being caught anyway. A distinction should be made between catch and landing, which often do not marry up, because of dumping and discounts. If we took a fuller approach we would be better off economically, and fish would go to people’s plates, rather than being dead at the bottom of the sea.

Another issue that has been raised in my community concerns some fishermen who want new boats. There are difficulties in making improvements in comfort and safety, but unless a vessel has a track record of fishing in a particular area they cannot get a boat. That is surely not sustainable in the long term. If that had been the policy in the 1920s we would still have people going out in sail boats. We are looking for basic common sense, so that things can change, and so that we can let communities be flexible and fishing fleets be renewed naturally over time.

The penultimate issue that my Hebridean fishing community of Na h-Eileanan an Iar would like me to raise is the introduction of a community quota for mackerel and herring, which swim in abundance in our waters. Originally herring were a staple of the Hebrides. There is a nice story of a Lewisman arriving a couple of centuries ago at university in Aberdeen. The lecturer brought him to the front of the lecture theatre and asked him to show his teeth to the then broken-toothed Aberdonians, and claimed that Donald had the teeth he did because he had been raised on herring and potatoes. Given that heritage, we would look for a quota of about 200 tonnes of each species to be locally managed for the local market and local consumption. The west coast herring quota is about 13,500 tonnes and the UK mackerel quota is 191,000 tonnes, and I do not think what I am asking for is unreasonable at all.

Communities should have a bigger stake. At the moment the UK pelagic sector is controlled by about 20 boats in Scotland, three in Northern Ireland and a small number in England. A healthy acquaintance with the culture of food is in danger of being lost. The issue is also about a sense of history, not to mention health, because the fish are rich in omega 3 oils. Two hundred tonnes is not an unreasonable amount to ask for, when we think of the amount of quota that there is. Also, we would need that much at £500 to £700 a tonne, because it would cost about £10,000 for a boat to be rigged out to be involved in a community pelagic quota. Such a step would demonstrate regional management at a local level, and would provide a crucial local say—as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—in the fisheries and the fish that swim abundantly around the Hebrides.

Finally, I ask that we treat with some disdain the ever-spawning bureaucratic output from the European Union, especially in connection with the sea. When ideas do not allow for consideration of economic impact, that surely explains much about why the EU is in its present situation. That is why we should, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, be well clear of the common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). I congratulate the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing the debate. Like them, I have been engaged in debates on fisheries—primarily in the main Chamber, although sadly not on this occasion—for 15 years, although I know that the Member for Aberdeen North has done so for a great deal longer. I therefore approach the debate with a perspective of déjà vu, as we go over the same subjects time and again.

Last week, I met the chief executive and others from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations in Portcullis House. I asked him to reflect on the past decade or so and what is different now. Is it simply that we all trundle out each year and say the same things, then trundle back until next year, when we say the same things again? He said what I remember repeating some 10 or 15 years ago: the essential need for fishermen and scientists to work together a great deal more. When I was on the Select Committee on Agriculture, as it was then known, we went to Spain and saw the stark difference between how this country managed its fishing industry and how the Spanish managed theirs: instead of fishermen and scientists being at loggerheads as they were in this country, in Spain they were working together and ensuring that the fishery was evidence-based.

To take fisheries policy forward, there are a number of building blocks in terms of the powers in the UK and those we are trying to influence in Europe, as is repeated year on year. As I think we all agree, some of the blunt instruments that underlie the failed common fisheries policy need to be put aside and replaced by themes such as the essential importance of scientists and fishermen working closely together, regionalisation and, in my view, greater emphasis on closed-area satellite surveillance and other forms of enforcement to achieve the necessary progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), who is no longer in his place, proposed an alternative way forward that requires engagement with fishermen. I notice that he went out of his way, for one moment, to criticise Conservative-controlled Cornwall council and how it is managing fisheries. I have to say that I thoroughly endorse that sentiment.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew George]

Of course. I thought that might provoke my hon. Friend.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend clarify his remarks and explain how Cornwall council is responsible for managing fisheries? The inshore fisheries and conservation authority may be responsible for managing fisheries eventually, but I know of no committee on Cornwall council at the moment with fisheries management powers.

[Andrew George]

I will gladly respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon made the remarks, and he was critical of the local authority. The IFCA is the level at which the local authority engages with fisheries, in particular on under-10s, but there are many other ways to influence fisheries in Cornwall, such as planning, transport and other council functions. I simply want to put on record which party leads that local authority.

A number of issues have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) raised the important issue of the mackerel quota and the risk of losing some of it, in the absence of any consultation with the industry. The mackerel hand-line sector has the lowest possible effect on the fishery—anything below size or over quota, because it is a pelagic fishery, gets thrown back and lives. It is the most primitive method of fishing, and it only has 0.83% of the total UK quota. The Marine Management Organisation is considering removing some of that quota because we have had a couple of years of low stocks in the area, not through overfishing but simply because migratory patterns change from time to time. In fact, the ability to switch that quota to cod and other species that are abundant in our waters is an important part of the method by which inshore fishermen manage their fishery. The Minister has had a letter from me on the subject, so I hope that he will consider it.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) mentioned the spurdog as a by-catch inshore. A number of fishermen in my constituency— I wrote to the Minister on behalf of Chris Bean of Helford, for example—have been affected in exactly the same way by the unavoidable by-catch of spurdog, for example. Working with scientists, we need to find ways to avoid those by-catches. If the fish are caught and not going to live, clearly there should be an agreeable method of landing them, if it were possible to distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch, which I know is an issue of which the Minister and others are seized.

On the annual round, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation echoes many of the sentiments of the NFFO, because many of the country-wide issues also affect the country of Cornwall, but in spades. Cornwall has an ultra-mixed fishery, so evidence-based policy is fundamentally important in applying quota systems to it.

The Minister should also take into account recreational sea anglers, who are not properly represented and have no one to sponsor their activity, which is important to tourism. In that regard, Malcolm Gilbert and John Munday from my constituency have emphasised the need to ensure that we strike a balance in taking policy forward, not only in the IFCAs but throughout the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

1. What plans his Department has to consult stakeholders about the conservation plans which give effect to marine conservation zones.

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

I expect to consult shortly on the first round of marine conservation zones.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Like him, I am a strong advocate of this policy and have been for some time. May I seek reassurance that the introduction of this policy will create an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones, and will he ensure that all stakeholders—fishermen and environmentalists—are fully consulted on conservation plans, as well as on the designation of sites?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend and I are veterans of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. We have strived hard to achieve the definition of ecological coherence, which I am confident we will achieve. He is right to say that the next stage of consultation concerns the management of conservation zones, and I absolutely agree that fishermen and other stakeholders who were involved in the early stages of the process should be included.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who has worked on this issue for many years.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I very much welcome the measure, and I am content that it has the investigatory powers to address the issue raised a moment ago. Nevertheless, the code has been in place since 4 February 2010, so the question inevitably arises of whether the adjudicator has the power to take evidence on the period between 4 February 2010 and the establishment of that post.

[Jo Swinson]

The adjudicator will be in place and, as has been outlined, the code is already legally binding. The adjudicator can look at the evidence submitted, and will undertake more investigations. It is up to them to gather evidence on the basis of suggestions that things are not working as they should, and require supermarkets to comply with their legal responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, which organisations such as Traidcraft have put forward forcefully. Of course, in my duties as Minister I have met Traidcraft and other organisations to discuss the matter, but I am not persuaded that it is necessary to have the fining powers from the start, and I will outline why. I think that the sanctions that are in place and that will be available immediately are robust and will be sufficient to achieve the change we require. The adjudicator will be able to take one or more of three possible measures, two of them from the beginning: first, to make recommendations; secondly, to require large retailers to publish information, the “name and shame” power; and thirdly, if we do not think that the other remedies are working sufficiently well, to impose financial penalties.

That range of measures will mean that the adjudicator can tailor his or her action to the nature of the breach in order to enforce the groceries code most effectively. For example, in the case of a minor or unintentional breach, the adjudicator might decide that a recommendation to change behaviour might be sufficient to bring the retailer back into compliance. In the event of a severe breach that had caused serious harm to suppliers, the retailer could also be required to publish details of its breach prominently in the trade or national press. If it is deemed necessary, they could then incur financial penalties, if the Secretary of State has granted that power to the adjudicator. It is also important to remember that the Bill allows the adjudicator to take more than one measure if that is appropriate in a particular case.

[Andrew George]

Although I appreciate that the adjudicator will have the power to recover their investigatory costs, fining is very much the issue for debate, as the Minister has already identified. If either the adjudicator or the Secretary of State recommends that a fine should be applied, how many months would it take to implement such powers?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. If the Secretary of State decides that an order needs to be made to allow financial penalties, it is important to know that that would grant the power generally, not on a case-by-case basis, and, as a result of the amendment accepted in the other place, we believe that that could be done within six months. It would be fairly rapid if it was determined that things were not working.

I know as a result of interventions and, indeed, correspondence with the Department that some stakeholders and Members feel that financial penalties should be available immediately. What I would say is that the supermarkets operate in a fiercely competitive marketplace, so major supermarkets are, rightly, very careful about their reputations. As an illustration, in 2010 the four biggest supermarkets—Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons—spent £385 million on advertising, which is an indication of the importance that they attach to their brands and what they have to invest to promote them. They are fiercely protective of them and I think that they are likely to take very seriously the impact on their reputation of having to publish their breaches or take out an advert in the trade or national press.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I did not realise that we could bring toys to the Dispatch Box. If I had known, I might have brought my bear, Frosty, which I have had since I was a child, for everyone to see. Perhaps we can do that next time, or maybe a Scalextric for the Table would be exciting.

I pay tribute to those in the other place who have diligently gone through the Bill and sent it here. It is a significant measure, but it has been a long time coming. Labour Members can rightly claim some ownership of it. As Lord Grantchester said, the Bill

“has Labour’s fingerprints all over it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 728.]

In government, we gained cross-party support for a supermarket ombudsman to ensure a fair deal for farmers and food producers from the major retailers, and to monitor and enforce the code of practice in the form of the groceries code. We were therefore pleased that the Bill was included in the coalition agreement in the heady days of May 2010.

However, the Government have dragged their feet on creating the adjudicator, and on the powers to help food suppliers. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said,

“we look as though we don’t understand the urgency of this matter. Every week the Government fails to act, farmers are finding themselves in more difficulty.”

[Andrew George]

Of course, I also used those words when Labour was in power because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Competition Commission reported in April 2008, and for two years there were excuses and consultations, and a variety of reasons were given for the Government’s inability to go ahead at the time, despite the excellent private Member’s Bill that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is in his place, introduced.

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted with that intervention because we introduced the code, on which the adjudicator will now adjudicate. We are two and half years into the coalition Government, and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said when he was a shadow environment Minister at an Oxford farming conference just before the 2010 election that,

“Conservatives are clear: we will introduce an ombudsman to curb abuses of power which undermine our farmers and act against the long-term interests of consumers”.

However, we are on the cusp of 2013, and the Bill has just been introduced.

[Andrew George]

I do not want the debate to degenerate into a party political spat, but to put the record straight, the Competition Commission had the power to introduce the code, and it, not the Labour Government, introduced it.

[Ian Murray]

The code is there for everyone to see, and was introduced before the general election. The next paragraph in my speech pays tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives for all his work. If I had my pen handy, I might cross that out, but I would not be so churlish. I therefore pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Grocery Market Action Group. He has harnessed the support of organisations such as the Rural Shops Alliance, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the British Independent Fruit Growers Association, the British Brands Group, Traidcraft, ActionAid UK, Banana Link and many others in pushing the agenda from the early days of the Competition Commission inquiry, which he mentioned, in 2006 through to the establishment of the new groceries supply code of practice. He deserves great credit for continuing the fight, and I hope that he will support the Opposition in wanting to create a robust adjudicator.

I also take the opportunity to put on record thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is in his place and has long championed the establishment of an adjudicator. It is now more than two years since his private Member’s Bill—the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill. In the debate on Second Reading of that measure, he made it clear that the concept of a grocery ombudsman or adjudicator was not about being pro or anti any particular interest group, but about fairness, and the Opposition echo that sentiment. Nevertheless we are here now and, in a sense of cross-party support, we wish the Bill a swift passage on to the statute book. It is important, however, to get the legislation right, and although the Opposition are generally pleased with the current Bill, we will seek to strengthen it so that the adjudicator has the powers it needs to be effective from day one.

As the House will be aware, competition authorities have held two major inquiries into the grocery market. The first, by the Office of Fair Trading in 2000, led to the creation of the code of practice to regulate the relationship between the largest supermarkets and their suppliers. In 2006, the Office of Fair Trading referred the market to the Competition Commission, which completed a second inquiry in 2008. At the time, the commission said that,

“the transfer of excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers through various supply chain practices if unchecked will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain, and ultimately on consumers.”

It recommended a strengthened and revised code of practice to be enforced by an independent ombudsman—an unambiguous case for an adjudicator. As a result, in February 2010 the Labour Government brought in the groceries supply code of practice—GSCOP—to replace the supermarket code of practice, with the intention of putting the adjudicator on a firm statutory basis.

I am sure Members across the House will appreciate the work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which is brilliantly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) who I see is in his place. He did a diligent job on the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny—I should perhaps declare an interest as I was on that Committee at the time and have probably just patted myself on the back a little.

In its report, the Committee raised two concerns about the way the adjudicator’s office would operate. First, it was anticipated that the office would be able to launch investigations based only on evidence supplied by retailer or suppliers. The Committee argued that third parties such as trade associations or whistleblowers should be able to submit complaints about retailers. I am pleased that the Government made changes in that respect prior to Second Reading in the other place. They are to be commended on that alteration which the Opposition consider key to ensuring that individuals have the confidence to come forward with complaints under the cover of an industry group to protect anonymity and secrecy.

Secondly, the draft Bill allowed the adjudicator to impose fines on retailers that had breached the code, but only if the Secretary of State made provision for that by order. The Committee rightly argued that the adjudicator should be allowed to impose fines from day one—I shall return shortly to that crucial point.

There is little doubt that this legislation is necessary, and it is important to emphasise that supermarkets and retailers support the adjudicator in principle. One such retailer wrote to me privately earlier this week and stated:

“The groceries code adjudicator will encourage fair and robust regulation of supplier-retailer relationships.”

That speaks volumes.

We will scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it delivers on three key tests—that it promotes innovation and investment in the supply chain; ensures a fair deal for farmers and producers; and delivers better outcomes for consumers in terms of prices, quality and service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). It was interesting that in his introduction he declared an interest as a Labour and Co-operative party Member. It has been my privilege over many years to chair the Grocery Market Action Group, which has been mentioned in this debate. Reflecting on the discussion about naming and shaming, I should perhaps name and fame the stores that indicated that they would support the measures proposed in the Competition Commission’s report of April 2008 when we wrote to the stores that would be affected. Marks and Spencer, Waitrose and Aldi were the three stores that indicated that they would support the measures, with some reasonable conditions. In spite of my efforts to talk to the Co-op, I was surprised that it was not prepared to sign up at that stage. However, the regulation has been in place since February 2010, and there are opportunities now for all those stores to reflect on that.

Like others, I want to commend many people who have been the architects of this extremely welcome measure. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has already been mentioned—indeed, I mentioned him in an intervention. His private Member’s Bill did a great deal to pave the way for the measure. Former Members, too, made significant contributions. In 1998, Colin Breed, the former Member for South East Cornwall, made a valiant effort to put the matter on the agenda. He undertook an inquiry, which stimulated a further inquiry by the Competition Commission, entitled, “Checking out the Supermarkets”. He stimulated much activity, which is reaping the appropriate reward today on the Floor of the House. The former Member for Stroud, David Drew, was also a significant contributor to the debate, as was the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is not in his place, but was present earlier. I have had many conversations with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who has been a strong supporter of the proposal for a long time. I also commend the Minister for an excellent exposition of the purpose of the measure, and the Government’s strong support for what is now Government primary legislation, even though its origins were a private Member’s Bill under a previous Government.

I do not need to repeat much of the background to what we hope will be legislation in perhaps weeks—certainly not many months. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, when I was originally involved, and certainly when the former Member for South East Cornwall engaged in the work, there was no party political support for regulation, even among Liberal Democrats, who subsequently adopted the proposal in their 2005 manifesto. In those days, the proposal that there should be any regulation was advanced only against all the odds. Even the National Farmers Union proposed a buyer’s charter and set its face against regulation, even though I and others had proposed it. It has therefore taken many years and a glacial pace to achieve progress. To be in the position whereby the proposal had all-party support at the last general election was remarkable. The larger parties clambered on board at the last minute, only months before the election. However, we had almost created a “who blinks first” scenario as we went into the general election, and all parties came on board and supported the proposal.

Significant commendation should be given to Peter Freeman, chairman of the Competition Commission, and the whole commission, for an excellent inquiry, which commenced in 2006 and concluded in 2008. It considered all the evidence that many of us had been encouraging the competition authorities to scrutinise for many years. It reached the telling conclusion that, in some cases, as the Minister said, the supermarkets were guilty of transferring excessive risk and unexpected costs to suppliers, with the consequent detrimental knock-on effect on not only suppliers and their capacity to continue trading, but consumers and, indeed, innovation in the retail sector.

I do not approach the matter from the position that supermarkets are wicked. Their activities are entirely rational. Had all of us been in the same position, and we had not maximised all our market muscle to advance the interests of our company, and we had therefore lost market share in a cut-and-thrust market, we would have failed in our duties. However, the question is, “When does effective, clever and successful use of power become abuse?” The Competition Commission rightly identified that we have long passed the point at which that use of power has become abuse, as the many examples that have been given today show.

The previous Government rightly supported changes to the common agricultural policy, which forced farming to become much more market facing. Price support policies were done away with, the protections that farming was so used to in this country were no longer in place, and the industry needed to live or die by the marketplace. However, how could farmers and growers succeed or survive in that climate? I appreciate that many growers, pig farmers and others struggled to survive long before those changes. Nevertheless, leaving that aside, how could farmers survive when, as Prime Minister Tony Blair said, the supermarkets had got them in an arm lock? One could argue that they had got them in an even more painful position at times. The supermarkets were able to control market conditions, which was a conclusion of the previous Competition Commission report.

What are we trying to achieve? It has always been my view that if supermarkets have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from embracing the Bill. I have said to the supermarkets that, if they are clever, they should embrace the proposal and see it as something good. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested that there should be a panel to review the supermarkets’ success in applying the code. My view is that, if the supermarkets are prepared to embrace and invest in the proposal, there would be a fair trade regulator, which could give a mark to each supermarket to show whether it was a fair trader and grade it accordingly. Supermarkets could then perceive the code as a promotional tool rather than a stick with which to beat them.

Fining has predominated today’s discussions and will doubtless do so in Committee. After all these years, I do not want to risk any further delay in implementing the proposal. I would not like any amendment to the Bill to cause such delay. Will the fear of reputational damage be sufficient to persuade supermarkets to apply the code effectively and not to engage in the sort of practices that got us into the current position? Of course, I am on the side of those who want fining on the face of the Bill, but I believe that reputational damage has an impact. I remember the days when genetically modified technology was introduced and available to the supermarkets. Non-governmental organisations undertook a lot of campaigning, which dissuaded the supermarkets from putting GM products on their shelves. If there were adverse reports, the campaigning bodies—if they were doing their job—would draw the attention of customers and the public to the failure of those supermarkets.

[Mr Spencer]

On that point, there cannot be a more passionately felt issue than animal welfare. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the British pork industry had much higher standards of animal welfare than its counterparts in Europe, but that that made no difference to whether consumers bought British or foreign pork?

[Andrew George]

There is evidence and evidence to counter it on all sides, and that takes us to a point that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made earlier. Providing that customers who are buying British are reassured that it genuinely is British and not some kind of subterfuge, the point about animal welfare is relevant. Customers understand that significantly higher animal welfare standards have been in place in the UK for many years, particularly in the pig industry, and that is one of those reassuring messages. I agree, however, that it does not always work, particularly when the message becomes confused.

When I intervened on the Minister, I said that there was likely to be a lot of evidence of contraventions of the code from the time it was first put in place on 4 February 2010. My concern is that the position of adjudicator will be such that they will operate for only one day a week from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and when they are fully operational, they will work three days a week with three or four members of staff. I also understand that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority already wants to present 1,000 pieces of evidence to the adjudicator, and I am concerned about whether sufficient resources will be in place to deal with all the work, cases and evidence that may be brought forward.

[Jo Swinson]

Let me clarify to the House that the adjudicator will look at breaches of the code from when it comes into force. It may investigate evidence of problems that have been ongoing, but if a breach stopped before the adjudicator was established, it would not be able to impose sanctions. Because the code is already legally binding, other legal routes are open to suppliers that fall into that category. The Government want to ensure that this measure is successful, and we have outlined what we think will be its initial budget. We will, of course, keep that under review and work closely with the groceries code adjudicator when it is established.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, although I am also disappointed. A lot of people—certainly suppliers—want to ensure that we have an adjudicator that can look at breaches of the code that have taken place from the introduction of that code, not from the point at which the adjudicator is established. I hope that we can explore that a little further in Committee. We want to ensure that the adjudicator has the time and resources to investigate matters properly.

Clause 10 of the Bill concerns the power of the adjudicator to apportion investigation costs. I hope that will reassure supermarkets that the adjudicator can also apportion costs against those who make vexatious complaints or claims that are without merit. To a certain extent, that answers the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth—such powers already exist. I would be concerned about my hon. Friend the Minister’s proposal because the Bill is quite clear that such matters should be at the discretion of the adjudicator, and not at that of a self-appointed panel that might produce a survey report by which the adjudicator would then be bound.

Overall, the Bill is extremely welcome and not before time. I would not wish to get involved in a discussion with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), whom I thank for his kind words earlier. There is no point in looking to the past for an explanation of why it has taken so long for the Bill to proceed. We must now ensure that it is implemented effectively and properly as quickly as possible, so that suppliers get the protection that they richly deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I will inevitably return to that point a little later, as it was raised by so many Members. Let me first, however, cover the other specific points mentioned in the debate.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) asked about companies outside the big 10. He is absolutely right that they are not specifically included in the Bill as levy payers, but let us recognise that the big 10 represents 95% of the grocery trade. If we are successful in the application of the adjudicator in improving standards of contract compliance, that will feed through to the rest of the sector by competition alone, if nothing else. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned length of contracts. That is not specific to the code of conduct, but the matter can be properly investigated in the context of an abusive relationship. Where such a relationship exists, that will be laid bare by the process.

The hon. Member for Bristol East made some good points about food waste. She knows that we have engaged with her on that issue and will continue to do so. I think I have a meeting with her in the near future to talk about that.

A number of Members spoke with a great deal of experience of the sector from having worked on the producer side. The hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton all have direct experience of working in agriculture and could tell us about the sort of downward pressures that they know suppliers regularly experience. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about trade associations. I hope I have been able to put her mind at rest about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) raised a number of important points. He spoke about access to the code and, as I said, I hope I have given him some reassurance on that. He talked about changes to the code. That is an important point. According to the process set out in the Bill, the adjudicator can put forward for consideration changes to the code, but that proposal goes back to the Competition Commission for consideration before being put before the House. It is important that we maintain that linkage because fundamental to the Bill is the abuse that the Competition Commission identified between major retailers and their suppliers. It would be a great mistake for the House to substitute our opinion for the evidence adduced by the Competition Commission.

My hon. Friend also mentioned retrospectivity. Let me underline the point again. If an abuse is continuing at the time that the adjudicator is appointed, it is proper that he or she should investigate that abuse, but we have a strong principle in British legislation that we do not apply retrospectivity to something that occurred before the date that a particular statute comes into effect. Therefore it would not be entirely proper for the adjudicator to look at complaints within the terms of the code that pre-dated that appointment if they no longer continue.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend says that the code would not apply retrospectively, relative to the date of the statute. Of course, the statute came in on 4 February 2010. The Bill merely provides for the referee to enforce the code. Retrospectivity in respect of the statute therefore does not apply.

[Mr Heath]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. If he would care to engage with Government lawyers on that point of law, I am sure we would be happy to engage with him. We can return to the subject in Committee or on Report.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) queried clause 15(10), and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also thought it was a bit odd. Let us debate that in Committee. What is proposed there is a safeguard which we hope will not be used. It is designed to deal with the circumstances in which the adjudicator was swamped with spurious complaints which hindered him or her from doing their work. The adjudicator would be required to pare those complaints down to the categories set out there. It would not stop them taking information from any source, but it would stop them taking complaints from any source. As I have said, I do not envisage that that will be necessary and hope that it will not be, so it is a reserve power, but I completely understand the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that it is in some ways an unusual provision. It is certainly something we can discuss properly in Committee.

Ash Dieback Disease

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have not yet formally responded to the independent panel on forestry, but we have indicated that we accept the thrust of its recommendations. I look forward to giving a full response early in the new year on that subject. The future for forestry is very bright, despite setbacks of the sort that I have described today. I repeat that we have not cut back on the allocation of resources. I hope we will be able to mobilise not just scientists, foresters and the voluntary groups for which he has spoken up, but everybody who has an interest in trees in this country, to ensure we have a thriving forest—not only today, but in future.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Given that there will be a desire for public vigilance, what will the Government do to ensure that public concern and support for taking action on this issue are properly and effectively harnessed?

[Mr Heath]

I am keen that all of us with an interest in tree health take responsibility for this. We cannot all be experts on fungal diseases of the ash—I do not expect that—but people should report clear symptoms of ill health in trees to the authorities. The Government play their part by ensuring that research programmes into aspects of tree health are augmented, and we will thus ensure that we have healthy forests in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am not blaming anybody. I have been working very closely with the NFU since I took office. I have been studying this issue since I was the shadow spokesman and put down 600 questions, taking a serious, detailed interest in it. This is the right policy. It is the policy pursued by every other country, as I have said. Unlike with the vapid pronouncements we have had from the Opposition, this Government will take on a deadly disease, which is a zoonosis, so if we do not get a grip on it, it will prove a risk to human beings.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

In view of that and of my right hon. Friend’s answer, it is important to base things on sound science. If he has read the science and understands the answers he has received to the 600 questions, he will know that the 12% to 16% reduction has to be viewed against a rise elsewhere. It will not rise as much as it would have done otherwise, but it is still a rise in bovine TB. Does he not accept that?

[Mr Paterson]

No, I dislike disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I used to work closely on the EFRA Committee and when I was the shadow spokesman. The evidence is absolutely clear: there was a 28% reduction in disease after nine years in the cull area. That is why we are going ahead next year.

Badger Cull

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Were we to eradicate every single badger, we would certainly eradicate bovine TB, but we would also eradicate a very important species.

The ISG concluded that

“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.”

That is the conclusion of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself says is the most scientifically robust trial that has ever taken place in the UK. We want policy to be based on the science, which is why we should be looking at what the ISG says.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

If we are to talk about eradicating bovine TB, it is important that we go back to the science and try to put emotions aside, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) mentioned a moment ago. The trials clearly showed that the best possible outcome would be a 16% reduction, but that is a reduction in the context of an increasing incidence of TB. Indeed, the Secretary of State has talked about the incidence of bovine TB doubling in 10 years. In those circumstances, all a cull would do is reduce the increase. It will not result in a reduction in bovine TB.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that it is worth reading what Lord Krebs said in the House of Lords, because it is exactly the point the hon. Gentleman identifies. He said that

“the long-term, large-scale culling of badgers is estimated to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% after nine years. In other words, 84% of the problem is still there. To reflect on what that means, this is not a reduction in absolute terms”,

as the hon. Gentleman rightly said,

“but actually a 16% reduction from the trend increase. So after nine years there is still more TB around than there was at the beginning”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 148.]

That is the key point that Government Members are not taking on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, as we have heard in the debate and in the statement on Tuesday.

Many hon. Members will want to discuss vaccination. I am pleased that, in the west country, there have been efforts to roll out badger vaccination programmes. They seem to have been successful, although it is the very early stages. Many hon. Members will discuss the scientific evidence, which seems to me to be overwhelmingly in support of the notion that badger culling would have a limited impact if any—I believe it says there would be a 16% reduction in bovine TB over nine years.

However, in the time available, I want to focus on cattle-to-cattle transmission. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) probably misspoke when she said that if every single badger were eradicated, we could eradicate bovine TB—she went on to say that we could not eradicate all badgers and mentioned cattle-to-cattle transmission. In response to a question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in September this year, the Government accepted that about 50% of cases of bovine TB in areas where the randomised badger culling trial took place were attributed to badgers. The other 50% were attributed to cattle-to-cattle transmission. In areas where there is lower incidence, there is a much higher rate of cattle-to-cattle transmission.

It is important to address that point. I was concerned that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not seem to be willing to acknowledge in Tuesday’s statement the very significant role that cattle-to-cattle transmission plays in spreading the disease. Indeed, when he was asked a question about cattle husbandry, he said that the problem was that badgers can get into sheds. He also said that famers grazing cattle in fields cannot prevent badgers from getting to them. That is not what the cattle husbandry issue is about—the Secretary of State was focused totally on badgers, rather than on what happens when cattle spread disease. The fact is that many of the badgers that carry TB are not particularly infectious—[Interruption.] I can cite evidence on that.

[Andrew George]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not want to give way again in the time I have left.

I was concerned that the new Secretary of State seems not to have got to grips with cattle-to-cattle transmission, but I accept that tighter controls will be introduced from next year, which I welcome. When his predecessor as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), made a statement on the cull just before the Christmas recess, she failed to mention cattle-to-cattle transmission, as I pointed out to her at the time, although she did mention it in her statement in July. There is a degree of complacency in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on cattle-to-cattle transmission, which needs to be addressed.

On the history of bovine TB, it is clear is that, in the 1960s, when strict quarantine rules and the rigorous testing of cattle were in place, bovine TB was almost eliminated from the UK. However, farmers were not happy with the regime and complained, and, to quote George Monbiot:

“TB returned with a vengeance”.

Professor Graham Medley of the university of Warwick has said that the only way to eradicate TB in cattle would be a return to the stricter and more effective controls that were in place 40 years ago. Professor John Bourne, who led the randomised badger culling trial—which, as we know, concluded that badger culling could make “no meaningful contribution” to controlling bovine TB—agrees with Professor Medley. Professor Bourne has said that only stricter biosecurity can control bovine TB. The RBCT report states:

“Weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone”.

A European Commission report of September 2011 revealed significant evidence of bad practice in English farms. It found that failure to abide by cattle TB prevention measures was widespread. The Commission gave the UK €23 million in 2011 for bovine TB control measures. Its inspectors found that the removal of cattle with TB was below the target of 90% in 10 days, and that, in the first half of 2011, more than 1,000 cattle had not been removed after 30 days. It found that there were 3,300 overdue TB tests as of May 2011 and that many calf passports, which are used to track movements, were incomplete. It also found that only 56% of disease report forms had been completed on time. Funding cuts were cited as the reason for the failure of local authorities to update their databases.

The Commission report concluded that local authority surveys provided evidence that

“some cattle farmers may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags, ie retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place.”

A couple of Government Members are shaking their heads, but farmers have been prosecuted for that in the west country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sanders]

It has a lot to do with it, frankly. Killing animals that do not carry the disease is simply wrong.

There is a significant body of scientific evidence on the efficacy of culling, both supporting and rejecting the idea. The majority conclusion, however, is that a cull could be not only ineffective, but potentially counter-productive in controlling the disease, by increasing the number of infected badgers and cattle through the perturbation effect. That was highlighted by the research carried out by the independent scientific group in the randomised badger culling trial, which published its results in 2007 and warned against the results of badger culls. Dr Rosie Woodroffe, who was referred to earlier, is a former member of the ISG on cattle TB. She said earlier this month that

“all… evidence shows that culling badgers increases the proportion of badgers that have TB”.

As the Government have now admitted, there is also great unpredictability surrounding the logistical element of the cull. Using so-called shooting, it is unknown how many badgers will be destroyed or whether the shooters will have managed to fulfil their quota. The longer-term consequences on local ecosystems—such as an increase in fox populations—are not entirely foreseeable. The cost of the cull seems to be increasingly complex, but there is a general consensus that it is a bad deal for taxpayers.

As Professor McInerney, emeritus professor of agricultural policy at the university of Exeter—right in the heart of the worst bovine TB-affected area—said,

“You pay about £1.5 million to get the disease avoidance worth about £900,000.”

It seems that not enough research has been done into the most cost-effective way to carry out a cull, but also that spending money on an ineffective cull would be a disastrous step in the battle to control TB. If the Government were to redirect those resources into further research and the development of alternative options, such as a vaccination, they would get far better value for taxpayers.

Let me turn to public opinion. It is obvious to most that the vast majority of the public are against the cull, as is evident from the e-petition. The Government seem to have lost sight of public interest and have developed the cull, which seems to be attractive only to understandably desperate farmers. It seems unfair to present those farmers with a quick fix that has no hope of a sustainable or successful future and to entice them with it. The responsible thing to do would be to back down from the cull altogether and explore the alternatives, to which I will now turn.

Of course, vaccinating cattle is the obvious solution to the problem. However, until we can develop a test that can distinguish between vaccinated and infected cattle, there is no hope of getting EU law changed, although some people contend that there has been a major breakthrough even in this area—an argument that others will no doubt pick up. In the meantime, we could start a badger vaccination programme. We have been vaccinating badgers since 2010, and there have been positive results. Research published by Dr Mark Chambers in 2010, using evidence gained in a field trial, showed a 73.8% reduction in positive serological test results in badgers. Just as in humans, when enough of the population is vaccinated, prevalence of the disease reduces.

According to the Gloucestershire wildlife trust, vaccinating badgers costs £51 per hectare, but that cost could be lowered. Getting groups to combine their operations with nearby areas and to share fridges, traps and other costly items drastically cuts the costs, making vaccination not only a more ethical option, but cheaper than culling. The money saved from not carrying out the cull should be used to fund the development of an oral vaccine for badgers. We know that oral vaccination is a much more practical solution, and the sooner one is developed, the better.

The Welsh Government’s TB eradication programme is something that we should monitor closely and consider adopting for England. The programme has combined badger vaccination with stricter cattle controls and improved biosecurity and has had some success.

[Andrew George]

On top of the efforts that my hon. Friend is talking about and the science, which should be taken into consideration, the recent results of research commissioned by DEFRA and headed by Dr Andrew Conlan at Cambridge university showed that one in five of the herds that had been given the all-clear on bovine TB were actually still harbouring the disease. We should be concentrating a great deal of effort in that area as well.

[Mr Sanders]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to that research, of which I was not aware.

The Welsh Assembly Government have been offering biosecurity advice to farmers within the intensive action area, and the Government should be doing the same in Devon and other heavily affected areas. It is an easy and relatively cheap way to ensure that farmers have the knowledge and guidance that they need to limit the spread of bovine TB. That of course will not solve the problem overnight, but better farming practices and a general build-up of immunity in the badger population will slowly lead to a much lower rate of TB infection.

As someone lucky enough to have been born and grown up in the county of Devonshire, it is now my privilege and honour to represent a constituency in the county. No one from the west country is unaware of the issue, and what unites us across the south-west, as I hope it does in the House, is a desire to find a workable solution to this appalling plague on our cattle, our wildlife and the lives of our wonderful farmers and the communities in which they live. But a cull is not it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak against the motion. It strikes me that many who have spoken in its favour have done so having assumed for themselves the mantle of majority support and that the country is behind them, but I can tell hon. Members that my constituents are not behind the motion. I can say that with some authority, because I surveyed some 30,000 households over the summer and one of the questions I asked was whether they were in favour of the Government’s approach to pilot culls to tackle bovine TB, and the results were that 59% were in favour of pilot culls, 27% were against and the others did not voice an opinion.

The reasons why a majority of almost 2:1 of my constituents are in favour of the Government’s courageous policy are simple and have been rehearsed many times during this debate: the huge loss of our cattle—some 26,000 last year; the huge expense to the taxpayer of almost £100 million last year and £1 billion over the next decade, if this is left unchecked; and a cost for every farm where there is an outbreak of £30,000, of which £10,000 is borne by the farmer. This is unsustainable; it cannot be allowed to continue.

As many hon. Members have said, there is a human cost to farmers, their families and the communities in which they live. That cannot be underestimated. One of my most special constituents is Mr Brian Warren, who runs a voluntary organisation called Farm Crisis Network, which provides pastoral support to farmers in distress. I invite any Opposition Member who supports the motion to come to Central Devon, sit down with Brian and listen to some of the stories about the misery that our farmers are going through as a consequence of this scourge. On most occasions, it is nothing short of harrowing.

I wish to deal with a couple of arguments that have been made by those on the other side of the debate. The first is that we somehow claim that our approach will be 100% successful. We do not. The culls will be pilots, from which we will learn. We accept that we will not eradicate bovine TB in the cull areas, but we have to accept that no other approach will lead to quick and certain 100% eradication either. We therefore have to use the proposed approach, along with increased biosecurity. The Government announced as recently as last week that biosecurity would be tightened up. We also have to look to the ongoing use of vaccination and the development of vaccines in future.

The second argument that has been deployed is that our approach will have no effect whatever on TB, or indeed will make it worse. Many Opposition Members have mentioned the independent scientific group and the Krebs trials as evidence, but time has moved on and so has the assessment of those trials. New analysis and new research has challenged some of their conclusions. I refer specifically to the report of one member of the ISG, Professor Donnelly. As recently as last September, she wrote:

“In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull”—

the Krebs trials—

“to 28 August 2011, the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 28.0% lower…than in survey-only areas”—

as used in the trial—

“and on lands up to 2km outside proactive trial areas was 4.1% lower…than outside survey-only areas”.

As time has gone on, the evidence in favour of the effectiveness of culling has hardened.

[Andrew George]

Professor Donnelly has also shown that that reduction still represented an increase in the incidence of herd breakdowns, but at a lower level than would have been the case had the cull not gone ahead. That reduction is at the nub of the justification of the Government’s policy, but it was not an absolute reduction.

[Mel Stride]

In the absence of any other factors, that is correct. However, the pilot culls that are now envisaged for next year will be held on a different basis. The area over which they will be held will be substantially larger than for the Krebs trials, which is an important factor. We have talked much about the effects of perturbation, which will be reduced by having hard boundaries such as coastlines, rivers and motorways.

I turn to the issue of vaccination. It is simply impractical, as things stand, to consider the vaccination of badgers as a sensible way forward. Until we achieve a reliable oral vaccine we simply do not have the resources to go out and trap badgers individually, on an annualised basis, and have trained, registered and licensed personnel to go out and inject them with vaccine. That is simply not going to happen. I laud the Government for spending a considerable sum—some £16 million a year recently—to help develop the vaccines that we need.

It must be reiterated that even if we vaccinate cattle, we still do not have a reliable, licensed and usable test to differentiate cattle that have been vaccinated from those that are carrying TB. The DIVA test is not yet licensed and usable.

I have one or two quick points to make to Ministers. First, one reason why the NFU decided to ask the Government to postpone the pilots was that there was a fairly significant under-estimate of the number of badgers in the pilot areas. I press the Government to ensure that the same mistake is not made next time around, and to ensure that the badger survey that is being conducted, which I believe will be concluded next year, is carried out with great rigour and examined extremely carefully. We need to know what the numbers are.

Secondly, I ask that the Government press hard to ensure that the DIVA test is made available, fully licensed and put in place, so that we can use it if we can move forward on the efficacy of vaccinations and our position with the EU.

Thirdly, I ask Ministers to consider the fact that we need the consent of landowners who own 70% of the land in the pilot areas. In fact, it is important that we achieve well in excess of that, because it is quite conceivable that landowners will be leant upon at various points during the pilot, and that some may drop out of the scheme. We need to get well above that threshold.

Finally, we need to press on. We should recognise the courage and decency of the current Secretary of State and the Ministers who came before him, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). They have a done a sterling job of standing up for our farmers, their families, our communities and those who believe in the rural way of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

That is absolutely true, although in parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency and of mine that choice is not available, so land will go out of production, with the loss of all the environmental “goods” such as stewardship and protection of the landscape.

The only piece of work that we have on which we can base an understanding of the science is, as hon. Members on both sides of the debate have said, the report that the ISG submitted to the Government based on the randomised culling trials. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon was right that its conclusions are crucial to the debate, but the question is whether one stops just before the end of the report, where the group said that culling has an effect and can help, or goes on to the coda, where it outlines its ultimate position and states that it does not think culling is practical. I argue that that is for the Government, politicians and those who will implement the policy on the ground to resolve. That I why the Select Committee felt that we needed to give the Government a chance to respond.

The hon. and learned Member spoke of the Select Committee’s membership in the previous Parliament: the late David Taylor, an active Member on many issues and on culling; the former Member for Stroud, David Drew; and Dr Lynne Jones. They were of such independent minds that it was a great comfort to Lord McAvoy when the Committee visited rural North Yorkshire or the south-west to look into the issue, because if instead they had been here, they might have been a little more challenging of the then Government’s position on whatever matter was being debated. They freely admitted that they were not convinced that culling was the answer to the problem, whereas others wanted to give those in the farming community the opportunity to show that it could work. The collective view that we reached appears in black and white.

The scientists—Professor John Bourne, Christl Donnelly, Rosie Woodroffe and Sir David King—gave evidence before us. The atmosphere between them was interesting; it was probably more of an atmosphere than we sometimes have in here for Prime Minister’s Question Time, such was their commitment to the work they had done. None the less, the Select Committee reached the view that it did.

I should like to look at the alternatives to the culling trials. I emphasise that we are discussing pilots, not country-wide implementation overnight, and moving forward carefully, sensitively and in line with the science in two areas to demonstrate that culling is effective.

[Andrew George]

Of course, after these two pilots merely assess the effectiveness and humaneness of the culling method, the intention is then to roll it out throughout the country at a very much accelerated pace.

[Dan Rogerson]

We will see what happens during the pilots. Looking at the methodology is one of the key issues, as my hon. Friend rightly points out. It might be that other problems are pointed out, which would make it impossible to continue, but we have to give the people involved the chance to carry out and test what happens. As Opposition Members have said, we will not have the data that we need to move on unless we try to do what the ISG findings point towards: using the hard boundaries, using the wider area and getting on and doing it.

I have heard some hon. Members say that the coalition Government have cut spending on vaccination. Actually, since 1994, just over £40 million has been invested; over the next four years, the Government are planning to invest over £15 million. That means an acceleration of the effort towards vaccination. We still have problems with the tests. It is possible that the DIVA test will get us where we want to be, but we are still not there yet. The practicality of vaccination is another issue. We have talked about the practicality of a cull, but there are huge problems around vaccination.

We would all like to get to a state where it is not necessary to carry out intervention of this sort in wildlife. We would all like farmers and others concerned about animal welfare issues to unite around something—but we are not yet there. Effectively, we are saying, “Let’s do nothing.”

On biosecurity measures, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who, as she said, has looked a great deal at food policy, painted a bit of a picture of farmers who were completely lackadaisical and not at all interested in biosecurity. It is in their interests to be interested in biosecurity, as they are the ones who suffer in their businesses from restrictions and all the other problems that we have now. Of course they are taking the issue seriously. The one or two of them who are not will be rejected by the rest of the industry, which is absolutely committed to delivering on the further restrictions that the Government are introducing.

To say that the cull is an easy option and that farmers are going to hang up on biosecurity, forget all about it and just get on with killing badgers is absolute nonsense. I do not want to over-characterise what the hon. Lady said, but the gist was that farmers do not care. Of course, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was quite scathing in what he had to say.

I am running out of time. To Members who think that those of us with rural constituencies are doing this because we are after votes, I should like to say that we are not. Huge numbers of people even in my own constituency where bovine TB is a problem have told me that they are worried about a cull of badgers. We are doing this and supporting it because it is the only game in town at the moment—it is the only thing that we can possibly do to bear down on this problem. If we fail, we will deserve to be roundly criticised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

It goes without saying that the research must be carried out, that it must be ongoing and that it must not be prevented as a result of what we are trying to do here.

I commend the Republic of Ireland—shock, horror, stop the presses: Paisley commends Republic of Ireland!—which has already carried out a cull. I should make it clear that this has nothing to do with jealousy on the part of those of us north of the border who do not get to shoot. The cull in the south of Ireland has led to a significant reduction in confirmed new infection rates among cattle herds. I believe that if this scheme is tried and proved to be effective, especially in countries where a land border is shared with another nation, we should adopt it. I believe that we should be learning—yes indeed, learning—from the Irish Republic on this important matter. I am happy to concede that point.

The BVA made a strong and significant point about vaccination. Although the badger BCG vaccine is currently available and undoubtedly plays a role in managing the disease, it is not proven to protect fully against infection. It merely reduces the progression and severity of the disease in animals that become infected later, and it has no impact on those infected prior to vaccination. We in Northern Ireland are currently carrying out a trapping test; we are trying to get animals trapped. As has been suggested, perhaps we should only use trapping to cull badgers.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman must accept that as badgers die at a very rapid rate—25% attrition each year—vaccination would result in a significant decrease of infection in badgers, whereas culling increases the preponderance of infection in badgers.

[Ian Paisley]

We have to accept that culling is not a silver bullet—it is not the magic answer—but vaccination is not the magic answer either. We have to try to tackle this problem, however. We have to continue searching for a vaccine that will work and will not destroy our herds and prevent us from selling our product.

We have to try this cull to see whether it can succeed. The costs are £100 million a year. We have to do something. This is robbing money from our hospitals, schools and roads. We are wasting taxpayers’ money; we are pouring it down the drain. We have got to address this problem.

The BVA has made it clear that there is no existing data to prove that badger vaccination has an impact on the incidence of BTB in cattle. Even if it does, it will have a much slower impact than the removal of badgers by culling.

I want to say a few words on the impact of TB in Northern Ireland. We have spent £200 million in the last six years trying to eradicate the disease, but we have failed. We want to spend £20 million this year trying to do it, and we are going to fail—and we are going to wipe out a number of our best milking herds. We also have criminals in Northern Ireland who deliberately try to infect herds so that they can get compensation. This problem has got to be addressed now. I hope the Government have got the guts to get on and do it. It will not be nice—it is not going to be pleasant—but we have to solve this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but I would like to return to a point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) made at the start of our discussion: that the debate can easily become polarised between “team badger” and “team farmer”, when what we need is “team science” and “team TB” and to address the issue much more calmly and rationally, because outside the Chamber there has been much light as well as a certain amount of heat.

I should like to emphasise from a constituency point of view and from my farming background the need fully to understand what is driving the issue and the disease’s emotional and financial impact over decades on very committed people in west Cornwall. Many Members have this afternoon conveyed the emotions that are felt from the impact of this devastating disease.

I strongly supported the RBCT in my constituency, which involved a proactive cull on the Penrith moors, and faced down the very strong campaign against the line I was taking just over a decade ago in support of the trials because I believe in sound science being the basis by which we take forward policy to bear down on TB. In a climate where the science might encourage legislators to prevaricate, to recognise dilemmas and perhaps to see only the need for further research and not to take action, the Government should ensure that they do not make the situation worse. We say that policy making must be evidence based, but as the Government former chief scientist, Lord Robert May, said in The Observer just a couple of weeks ago, the Government risk transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.

There are a number of knowns in the science, one of which I put to the Secretary of State at DEFRA questions today—that some of the figures from the RBCT have been exaggerated or cherry picked to justify the policy. For example, there is the argument that TB in culling areas was reduced by 30%. The research itself showed a reduction of somewhere between 12% and 16% in the net impact. Overall, this resulted in reducing only the increase in TB infection.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two of the other knowns are the recent breakthrough in the DIVA test, which could lead to it being put forward for licensing, and a 60% efficacious BCG vaccine for cattle, which could also lead to licensing, although it would require the Government to negotiate with the European Union for field trials within the UK?

[Andrew George]

There are certainly significant gathered knowns now that were not available 10 or 15 years ago. To go forward, we need to build a policy on a sound foundation—not simply on selective evidence.

In his summing up, I hope that the Minister will deal with the evidence in support of the Government’s policy. Will he recognise that the 12% to 16% reduction in incidence of infection for herds within culled areas in the randomised badger culling trial is not an absolute reduction, but a net reduction, which means only that the incidence is increasing at a lower level than it would have been without the cull. It would be helpful and reassuring if the Government were to acknowledge that.

Let us use the opportunity provided by the pause to go back and speak to the many scientists who are still saying that the Government have got this one wrong. Instead of having a war of words through the media, let us make sure that those scientists—the majority behind the ISG—are brought in. I believe that they should be involved.

Finally, I hope that the Government will accept that we should go to Europe, as was implied by the hon. Member for North East Somerset and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) in his intervention. These matters are not, after all, pre-ordained by God; these are decisions taken by human beings in Europe. We need to take a strong case to Europe in order to sort out the regulations and advance the testing of the vaccine and the DIVA test. That should allow us to come to a solution that is generally workable and does not make the situation worse.