Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jayawardena]

First, I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s account at the end of her question. The Government have been working on this issue, and we passed the landmark Environment Act 2021. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Double) published his plan over the summer, and we set out in that plan that there will be £56 billion of capital investment to tackle these issues. Indeed, we have ruled out some of the rises that the Opposition would have liked, which have added £122 to household bills. As I set out to the House, we are tackling this.

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

Ripping out our existing combined sewerage infrastructure is simply unaffordable, but will the Secretary of State, who I welcome to his post, look at sustainable development systems of the sort that have been implemented to very good effect in cities as far away as China and North America, particularly as the Government look at revising their planning laws to build much-needed housing?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he says. He is right that we should look at innovation from around the world to ensure that we are transforming our infrastructure, including in the water system.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Lady. In fact, I will come on to say a few words about peat very shortly. It sometimes feels that with all the focus on planting trees, which is very important, people sometimes forget that, actually, there is far more carbon sequestered in our peatlands than we will replace with our trees.

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

I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Lady has to say. Does she agree that one of the most important things that we can do is reduce the amount of waste that we send for incineration? In that respect, will she welcome the targets set out in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation document of 16 March, which look as if they are taking the Government towards reducing the amount of waste that goes to incineration? Does she agree particularly that the incinerator at Westbury has no place in our waste disposal strategy going forward and does she hope that the Government will place a moratorium on these horrible things?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am delighted to agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the Westbury incinerator in particular and about incineration in general. He is absolutely right. The sooner that we can move towards a genuinely circular economy, where we are not producing the waste in the first place, the better.

I was talking about the progress at the pre-meeting of COP15 in Nairobi just a few weeks ago. Frankly, it was woeful. In the closing plenary, non-governmental organisations warned:

“Biodiversity and the ecosystems across our planet are on the brink of collapse, and so is the CBD process itself right now. If nothing changes, we are heading towards failure at COP15. We cannot afford for that to happen.”

Indeed, while Nairobi saw positive development on the goal for halting extinctions and the mission to achieve a nature-positive world by 2030, even those proposals are absolutely littered with brackets, meaning that they have yet to be agreed multilaterally. As a reminder, following the earlier talks in Geneva, Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, the executive secretary of the UN convention on biological diversity noted:

“Most of the recommendations…have many brackets. Not few—many brackets.”

According to observers there was an apparent lack of political leadership and urgency in those negotiating rooms in Nairobi, with countries failing to build consensus and with the text as a consequence being described as “messy and lacklustre”. As one campaigner with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds put it, “We have a marathon to finish before we can say that we are close to a successful outcome, but no one seems to be running let alone sprinting.”

As the Minister will know, the world failed to fully achieve any of the 20 UN biodiversity targets that were agreed back in 2010. Here in the UK, we missed a shocking 17 out of 20 targets, again leading the RSPB to declare that we had seen a “lost decade for nature.” The world simply cannot afford another lost decade. It is essential that an ambitious framework is agreed at COP15 and that we learn from the failed efforts of the past to ensure that its targets are met.

Here in Parliament today, there has been far less scrutiny of this summit in comparison with November’s COP26 summit in Glasgow. In some ways that is understandable given that COP26 was a UK-hosted summit, but it is still concerning that, to date, there have been no debates or ministerial statements on COP15 in the House of Commons, all the more so given that Ministers have themselves acknowledged that nature and climate are two sides of the same coin and that we needed a joined-up strategy both for COP26 and indeed for COP15.

While MPs have been able to engage with the COP26 President at COP26 oral questions for which I am very grateful, no parallel mechanism exists for COP15. As a consequence, I just do not think that we have the same familiarity with the UK’s negotiating objectives or, indeed, the milestones in the run-up to that Montreal summit.

I have some crucial questions for the Minister. Ahead of the summit in Nairobi, it was reported that the UK Government were helping to co-ordinate a High Ambition statement, which called for, among other things:

“An ambitious global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally, with goals for 2050 and targets for 2030 and strong reporting and review mechanisms.”

That, of course, is very welcome, but will the Minister provide us with a more specific breakdown of the UK’s negotiating objectives? What steps is his Department taking to secure them? Will he commit to regularly updating this House as we progress towards the summit in December? Will he commit to raising the profile of the summit across government?

I appreciate, particularly this afternoon, that we have no idea who the Prime Minister will be in December, but regardless of who wins the Conservative leadership race, they should attend in person as a practical and tangible way of demonstrating their commitment to securing an ambitious global agreement. As we know from Glasgow, attendance of world leaders focuses minds and sets the pace of negotiations, and all of the evidence suggests that that will be much needed in Montreal.

Let me highlight several critical elements that will be essential in ensuring that that global biodiversity framework does indeed reverse nature loss. I welcome the strengthening of the 2030 mission, which now includes words on “halting” and “reversing” biodiversity loss, meaning that it is aligned with the Leaders Pledge for Nature, which is a vast improvement on the previous draft that aimed only to put biodiversity on a “path” to recovery by 2030. We also need to see specific and ambitious commitments from Governments to ensure that that mission is delivered, underpinned by robust accountability mechanisms and, of course, the necessary finance.

Looking at the agreement first, there should be a set of 2030 targets to prevent extinctions, recover species populations, and to retain and restore the extent and quality of habitats. Secondly, we need accompanying 2030 action targets that genuinely tackle the key pressures and drivers of biodiversity loss. Thirdly, we need agreement on the prominent target to effectively and equitably protect and conserve at least 30% of land, inland waters, seas, and coasts by 2030. I welcome the fact that the Government have championed this goal in negotiations so far. I hope in their role as a member of the High Ambition Coalition and as Ocean co-chair they continue to persuade others to do so.

Fourthly, in addition to a strong implementation mechanism, the UK Government should also champion a ratchet mechanism similar to that enshrined in the Paris agreement, to encourage countries to strengthen their plans over time.

Fifthly, the framework must recognise the important role of indigenous peoples and local communities in protecting biodiversity. Globally, their lands cover one third of the Earth’s land surface and 85% of biodiversity conservation areas. It is essential that the global framework respects and strengthens their land rights.

Sixthly, while target 16 includes some positive language on consumption, it is notable that the framework is missing a clear target to reduce countries’ ecological footprint. That is particularly crucial for our food systems, which are responsible for 80% of deforestation. The Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, has recommended that the UK advocate for stronger wording on developed countries’ reducing unsustainable consumption and production, but as well as stronger language we need a clear target. I ask the Minister whether the Government will champion the need for an outcome on halving our global production and consumption footprint by 2030.

Then we come to funding. Any framework must be underpinned by the resources necessary to implement the targets and hold countries accountable for their progress towards achieving them, yet finance has been one of the most challenging parts of the negotiation so far. When he appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee last month, the Minister of State for the Pacific and the International Environment in the other place told us that, on finance:

“The UK has a particular role to play, given the networks and relationships that we built in the run up to COP 26… We intend to use and are using those networks to try to plug at least that part of the gap.”

That is welcome, but can the Minister tell us what kind of financial figures the Government are looking at? Can he tell us if that will be enough to meet the so-called biodiversity funding gap?

In the final plenary session in Geneva, developing countries called for richer countries to provide at least $100 billion a year for biodiversity, rising to $700 billion by 2030. That is obviously a large sum but, as the Minister for the International Environment reminded us, the top 50 food-producing countries spend about the same amount every year in subsidising often destructive land use. Regardless of the final figure, funding for biodiversity must of course be new and be additional to climate finance and overseas development aid and, at the very least, harmful subsidies must be redirected towards nature-positive activities and investments.

It may be that in his response the Minister will point to the fact that the Global Environment Facility saw its funding increase by almost 30% for 2022 to 2026. That is welcome, but let us remember that that funding supports countries to meet their obligations under not only the convention on biodiversity, but several other agreements, including the climate change agreement. Totalling just $5.25 billion, its funding remains vastly insufficient to respond to the growing crisis.

Domestically, the UK must meet the Paris agreement for nature with renewed commitment and determination to deliver on the ambition of the 25-year environment plan, to leave the environment in a better state. We all know that the Government are not short of warm words when it comes to being a global leader on the environment, but too often the reality tells a different story. Nature in this country is under pressure from every angle: industrial agriculture, climate change, pollution such as microplastics, which are now widespread in our environment, and untreated sewage regularly dumped in UK waters, creating a risk for the environment and public health.

The Government’s failure to ban peat burning meant that vital carbon stores were set alight just weeks before COP26, and its Environment Act 2021 targets fundamentally lack ambition, with a target of increasing species abundance by just 10% by 2042 compared with 2030 levels leading some to say that England will have less nature in 20 years’ time than we do today. That is hardly a helpful target, and it has led the Office for Environmental Protection to conclude that it

“will not deliver nature recovery”,

or achieve the aims set out in the 25-year plan.

Warm words need to be replaced with meaningful action. Given the scale of the biodiversity crisis, the Government must also go further and faster than the commitment in the Environment Act to halt the decline of species by 2030, strengthening it to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030. Simply stopping things getting worse is no longer enough. The pledge to protect 30% of land and sea for nature was welcomed by the environment sector, but research shows that as little as 5% of land is currently effectively managed for nature, not the 26% the Government sometimes suggest. For 30 by 30 to genuinely deliver, it must ensure that protective areas are effectively managed for nature in the long term, with effective monitoring.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Who could possibly argue with that? I have to say, however, that the new potatoes from Jersey and Pembrokeshire do hit the market slightly sooner than the Comber potatoes. However, the protection of particular locally grown produce is very important. Indeed, we have Lough Neagh eels, which are protected, and Armagh Bramley apples, which also have a great following, not only across the water in Northern Ireland, but here on the mainland too.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of seed potatoes in respect of Northern Ireland and Brexit is because of the possibility of no deal? In that case, growers in Northern Ireland, whose seed potatoes are world renowned, not least because of their disease resistance, will have to change the kind of seed potatoes they produce—he touched on this in his remarks—if they are to export to markets outwith the European Union. That is because what is good for the European Union is not necessarily going to be appropriate for markets in, for example, north Africa. Despite the two years cited in the regulations, it is absolutely imperative that we get this measure on the statute book. If we do not, it is going to be very important for growers in Northern Ireland to be able to diversify in the way I have just described so that they can address markets outside the European Union, which presents a huge opportunity for them.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is absolutely right as regards the importance of getting this piece of legislation through and on the statute book. Indeed, the quality of seed potatoes produced not only in Northern Ireland but in Scotland and on the higher ground in England is world renowned. Virus diseases can be controlled using propagation methods and the strictures on growing potatoes for seed. That means that we have a world-class standing in terms of the quality of seed that we can produce, with very low levels of the virus diseases that can affect potatoes. That means that we have to continue to keep those standards up.

Let me turn to the other measures in this statutory instrument. The Control of Salmonella in Poultry Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2008, the Control of Salmonella in Broiler Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2009, the Control of Salmonella in Turkey Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) Order 2010, the Beef and Veal Labelling Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 and the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 are the measures being amended under this instrument.

These regulations make technical, legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable. Those adjustments represent no changes of policy; nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public. The sifting Committees considered this draft legislation on 21 February 2019. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that this instrument be debated in Parliament as it contained proposed amendments to the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which was in draft at the time. However, this element was laid before Parliament on 5 April 2019 and has been approved by the House.

Due to the decision of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, parts 5 and 6 of the draft regulations have been omitted and included in the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and the draft regulation has been renamed the Animal Health, Seed Potatoes and Food (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. So all the contentious or controversial aspects have already been removed, leaving this important but rather hollowed-out measure, which lacks the points that were of interest when it was referred. The draft instrument is being introduced under the correcting powers in sections 8(1) and 14(1) of paragraph 1 of schedule 4 and paragraph 21 of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Principally, it makes amendments to address technical operability issues as a consequence of EU exit.

This instrument applies to the fields of animal health, the marketing of seed potatoes and the labelling of beef and veal, which are devolved matters for Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are making similar changes by means of their own secondary legislation within their areas of legislative competence. I know that Opposition Members will mention consultations—indeed, they were mentioned earlier by Democratic Unionist party colleagues—so I will address this question for them. Although there was no statutory requirement to consult publicly on the instrument, officials engaged with key stakeholders covering different sectors to discuss the amendments that would be required and provided the opportunity to gain views on the draft instrument before it was laid. Stakeholders principally included the Ulster Farmers Union.

In regard to the structure of this SI, part 2 of the instrument amends the Control of Salmonella in Poultry Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2008, the Control of Salmonella in Broiler Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2009 and the Control of Salmonella in Turkey Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2010, to maintain and ensure high standards of poultry health. Part 3 amends the Beef and Veal Labelling Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010, providing for the provision of information for non-prepackaged meat of bovine animals aged 12 months or less at the point of sale, establishing a system for identification and labelling of beef and beef products. This ensures the maintenance of the marketing standards of meat and bovine animals. Part 4 amends the Seed Potato Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016, to ensure that high plant health and marketing standards are maintained. It also provides for a one-year interim period during which EU seed potatoes will continue to be recognised for production and marketing in Northern Ireland to ensure the continuity of supplies of seed potatoes.

What are the main changes? When I talk about changes, I mean changes to the text to cater for Brexit, rather than any substantive or policy changes. As with other instruments, various terms in the regulations or the directives that relate to the EU are amended to be relevant to the UK. The instrument updates references to retained EU legislation in parts 2, 3 and 4. Part 4 also introduces legislation that ensures that the legal requirements for producing and marketing seed potatoes are in place after the UK has left the EU.

There are three main changes. The first involves grade names. The current legislation is the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016, which includes all the requirements from the EU directive on seed potatoes—that is, directive 2002/56/EC. In those regulations, seed potatoes are sold in various grades, called union grades, depending on the age and quality of the seed. The instrument renames the union grades as “UK grades”. The actual names of the grades—PB, S, SE and E—are unchanged, as are the requirements to be met for each of the grades.

Secondly, if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement, UK seed potatoes will be prohibited from being marketed in the EU. In those circumstances, the UK could also prohibit the marketing in the UK of seed potatoes produced in the EU and Switzerland.

However, the varieties currently purchased by UK growers from the EU are not currently available within the UK. England, Wales and Northern Ireland have therefore agreed that EU seed potatoes will continue to be permitted to be marketed for a period of one year after exit day. That should give the UK industry some time to produce some of these varieties themselves. The instrument gives effect to that change.

For a variety of seed potato to be marketed within the UK, it must be listed on the UK national list or the EU common catalogue. After the UK has left the EU, the instrument will permit the marketing of varieties that are on the EU common catalogue, but not on the UK national list, for a period of two years. That will give the companies that control such varieties time to enter them on the UK national list and will also allow UK growers to continue to have access to those varieties in the interim.

This instrument will ensure that the high biosecurity and marketing standards achieved in both animal and plant health in Northern Ireland are maintained when we leave the European Union, and I commend it to the House.

Waste Incineration: Regulation

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Grogan]

I am quite shocked by that application, but it mirrors an application in the centre of Keighley, to which I will refer in my closing remarks.

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in this brilliant debate. I agree with his propositions, particularly on the waste hierarchy and the likelihood that incinerators will reduce both the amount that we recycle and our attempts to reduce waste in the first place. Does he agree that there is a risk, through so-called gasification, that we may have incineration by another means, and that it is absolutely right that applications should be considered—if they are to be considered at all—only if they are away from centres of population, on the precautionary principle?

[John Grogan]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman on the precautionary principle. However one defines incineration, it is true that the more of it there is in a local authority, the less recycling there is.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in a second, but I will not give way to the hon. Gentlemen from the SNP. First, however, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

[Dr Murrison]

This morning’s written statement’s bearing on tariffs is welcome, particularly the zero tariffs on goods travelling north to south on the island of Ireland, but what discussion has he had with Dublin about tariffs on goods travelling south to north? Given the importance of agrifood in Northern Ireland, he will appreciate the potential grave disadvantages for agriculture in Northern Ireland in the event of no deal.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have spoken to Michael Creed, who is the responsible Minister, but there are additional challenges that agriculture and food processing in Northern Ireland would face in the event of a no-deal scenario on 29 March.

Agriculture Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)]

Some months ago, in this House, I reminded the Prime Minister of the fact that my constituency contains more cows than any other. I have that on firm authority, although the exact source has slipped my mind, and as far as I know Somerton and Frome’s bovine supremacy is under no immediate threat.

Those cows, and our entire farming industry, face an enormous opportunity in the shape of the Bill: although perhaps not a giant leap, it is certainly not a small step. It is more a confident stride towards a confident future in which it is this country that decides how to frame our own agriculture policy in the interests of our own countryside, our own farmers and our own producers. After almost 50 years of having policy levers pulled by the hands of others—although, I am quite sure, with our best interests at heart—our hands are now back on the controls for a healthier environment, a cleaner environment, better soil health, better animal welfare standards, better public access to the countryside and, rather importantly for Somerset, better flooding control.

Let us not forget food production. Land management and food production must work hand in hand not only to provide the greatest environmental benefits, but to feed the country. With that in mind, I am delighted to welcome the Bill and, in particular, the financial powers in part 1, in which we at last depart from the area-based system of direct payments and arrive at a system of assistance based on providing environmental outcomes and, crucially, on improving productivity—be that to an agricultural, horticultural or a forestry business.

The focus really needs to be on how, by virtue of the best practice in improving productivity, we can deliver those environmental benefits. The two aims must run together. It is, after all, the Somerset grass that feeds the Somerset cow and gives forth our glorious Somerset milk and cheese.

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

My hon. Friend will know, because his constituency neighbours mine, that Arla, one of the biggest producers of dairy products, is in my constituency. In welcoming this Bill, as both he and I clearly do, does he nevertheless share the concerns of Arla as a first purchaser that clause 25 in particular might cause difficulties for it, while also trying to eschew the bad behaviour of rogue producers?

Scallop Fishing: Bay of Seine

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

There are a number of points that I would make. As I said in my statement, I still hope that, even at this late stage, the French industry will agree to take up the offer to put in place the agreement for the over-15 metre vessels that has stood the test of time for the last five years. It is not too late to do that. Indeed, the inward transfer of effort that they would make to enable this deal to happen is effort that would generally go unused, were they not to use it for this purpose.

I can also confirm that, when it comes to our annual fisheries negotiations, we go as a UK delegation. Alongside me in the trilateral meetings with the European Commission and the European presidency, I have representatives, including the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland fisheries Ministers. We have a well-established convention that, on issues that affect Scotland specifically, it tends to be the Scottish Minister who leads on those elements of the negotiation.

The final point I would make about the negotiations on leaving the common fisheries policy is that this side of the House believes the decision to leave the European Union was right. We are going to respect that and implement it. That involves leaving the common fisheries policy, an issue on which I know the hon. Lady’s party has mixed views.

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

The Minister will be aware that the bay of Seine is not the only potential flashpoint in the waters of European Union member states. What assessment has he made of the potential for other issues of this sort arising elsewhere? In particular, what is he doing about the Voisinage agreement between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, which, as I am sure he appreciates, has real potential to cause some difficulty in the not-too-distant future?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is right that there are other areas where there is potential for this. Sometimes we wish to designate marine conservation zones and we require the support of other countries to do that. There is sometimes an issue around farmed deeps. None of them, however, has resulted in the strength of feeling that we have seen around the bay of Seine and that we saw in 2012.

Sustainable Fisheries

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) did when he was a Minister was to establish in law that we could move away from some of the FQAs, but appropriate notice needs to be given to do so because the way in which people exercise those rights has been safeguarded in law. However, the direction of travel that the hon. Lady outlines is one with which I sympathise.

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

We will need a growing and sustainable workforce if we are to land more of our own fish, yet approximately half those who undertake the difficult and poorly paid work done by crew on board fishing vessels are from outside the British Isles. What will be done to ensure that we have the workforce that we will need to rely on if we are to land more of our own fish?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am in conversation with the Immigration Minister and the Home Secretary to ensure that the fishing and fish processing industries will have access to the labour that they need to take advantage of these opportunities.

Air Quality Strategy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I met the Mayor of London in my first week in office to discuss clean air, because the hon. Lady is right that it is a huge priority in all of our cities but particularly London, where there is rightly a huge focus on it. The Mayor is implementing the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) when he was the Mayor of London, and that continuity should continue to be a cross-party co-operation to solve what is a very serious issue for all of us.

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

Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness at the lack of contrition displayed on the Opposition Benches, given that Labour’s unquestioned adoption of policy in the early part of the last decade resulted in a massive increase in the number of diesel vehicles, making the air in places such as Westbury in my constituency considerably more toxic?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. A number of advisers and, indeed, serving Members on the Labour Benches now admit that their decision to promote diesel between 2000 and 2008 was not the right decision. The decision to promote diesel was a great shame, because we are now trying to deal with some of the consequences of that. It is important that we have cross-party co-operation to try to make sure that we tackle what is a very significant issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this a number of times, and he is aware that the review that we intended to carry out last year was delayed because of the referendum, which has clearly changed the context dramatically. We continue to have discussions with Scottish industry; indeed, just yesterday I met NFU Scotland to discuss future agriculture policy.

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

What can be done to encourage the European Union to promote the processing of foodstuffs in developing countries? I am thinking particularly of olive oil and coffee, where the value added tends to be within the European Union.

[George Eustice]

The UK and indeed a number of other European countries have preferential trade agreements in place to support developing countries and give them tariff-free access to the European market. This is important to the development of some of those countries, and the issues that my hon. Friend raises are regularly discussed at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council.