Animal Slaughter (Religious Methods)

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

Yes. I am hoping that in a moment the Minister with responsibility for farming will give us more figures. I think we should have closed circuit television cameras in all slaughterhouses, whether they are using shechita or halal methods, or stun systems for the general meat trade. I think that the amount of mis-stunning is sometimes exaggerated. On the other hand, mis-stunning of animals should not happen. It is very bad animal welfare, and we need to stamp it out. We need to be certain how big the problem is. If the system of stunning in a slaughterhouse is not correct, it should be replaced. I have no time for mis-stunning.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I know that my hon. Friend works closely with the British Veterinary Association, for which I am sure we all have the highest regard. Is it the case that if an animal is stressed, that is reflected in the state of the meat? Is that not damaging for the market?

[Neil Parish]

Yes; my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, makes an interesting point. We believe that if an animal is stressed, there will be an effect on the flavour of the meat. It is in the interest of not only the animal but the industry to make sure that it is as little stressed as possible when it comes through the slaughterhouse, but of course, the act of slaughter is in itself very difficult.

The revelations of horsemeat contamination in 2013 highlighted the importance that consumers place on the origin of their food, and the trust that they place in retailers to guarantee that. When that trust is broken, it is felt across the industry. An animal passes through a number of stages from the farm gate to the fork. That is why it is important that the meat should be properly labelled to allow consumers of all faiths to make informed decisions when they buy their meat. It is the all-party group’s belief that labelling should be considered, and it should be on the basis of stun or non-stun methods—not halal versus kosher—because consumers are thought to have a sufficient understanding of what the terms “stunned” or “non-stunned” mean. The group believes, however, that more work can be done to clarify, for consumers of halal and kosher meat, and the wider public, what the terms entail, specifically. That applies particularly to halal, where there is disagreement about the permissibility of stunning, as I mentioned earlier.

The report also makes a recommendation for research to be reviewed and new research to be undertaken where necessary to determine the effect of stunning on the residual blood content left in meat, in comparison with that produced from slaughter without stunning.

Badger Culls (Assessment)

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It is important that there is independent assessment of the culls, as there is a real fear of a lack of trust if there is no independent assessment of their effectiveness. We cannot leave it to the Government to determine whether culling has been effective because, as we have seen, they simply ignore the wealth of evidence put before them.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. On the subject of assessment, is his conclusion that the cull should not have proceeded or that it did not take place on the right criteria? The public would like to hear what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends propose for controlling a vicious disease that has an impact on wildlife and domestic animals, as well as a huge impact on cattle, which I am sure many hon. Members will go on to discuss.

[Chris Williamson]

I do not think the cull should have started in the first place, because of the wealth of scientific opinion that I have already outlined. I will come on to the alternative way forward.

I ask the Minister, where is the transparency? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been talking about the importance of transparent Government, but there is no transparency whatever in this process. Ministers and the National Farmers Union need to get real. The main route of transmission of TB is cattle to cattle. That has been independently verified by numerous experts. Ministers need to end this wild goose chase. To respond to the hon. Lady, we need mandatory annual and pre-movement testing for all cattle, and should impose significant movement restrictions. There also needs to be rigorous biosecurity for dairy farms around the country. That has happened in Wales, where the Welsh Government have gone further and have introduced badger vaccination, a move that the Government would do well to adopt, to address the dreadful disease of TB.

I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer when he responds. The public would like to know—it is in the interests of transparent government that they do—who monitored the latest cull; perhaps he will take a note of that question and respond to it. Will he also say when details about the cull will be published and by whom—will it be Natural England or DEFRA? How will humaneness, safety and efficiency be assessed? Those factors were assessed in the first year of culling.

Will a decision on a third pilot be reserved until after the results are assessed, or has that matter already been decided? Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could come clean on that. Indeed, will there be a third pilot or will the Government go straight to a roll-out? We need to know that as well.

Were any badgers tested for TB during the latest cull? If so, how many tested positive? Last year, a relatively small proportion of badgers killed tested positive. What proportion of badgers killed in this year’s culls were cage-trapped? We need to know that, because, as I understand it, part of the rationale behind the cull was to determine the effectiveness of free shooting.

Why was a different methodology for calculating the number of badgers used in year two from that used in year one? Why does the methodology applying to Somerset differ from the one applying to Gloucestershire? That just does not make sense—how can there be different methodologies from one county to the other? Surely that calls into question the bona fides of the Government’s process.

Finally, does the Minister agree with his own Department’s guidance to Natural England that the badger culls need to remove at least 70% of the local badger population within six weeks to avoid the risk of increasing cattle TB rates? If he does, can he explain why the targets set for this year’s pilot culls have been changed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am delighted to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing it.

There is a lot of common ground among Members here this afternoon, in that we recognise that TB is a huge problem—both bovine TB and potentially, the spread of TB in wildlife. We are talking about assessing a pilot scheme in one particular reservoir of wildlife, but heaven forfend that it enter into deer or other aspects of wildlife as well. It is not that long since people suffered from TB, and it is only due to the medical science developed in the last century that that has been controlled. The dangers of TB are, therefore, very real.

On animal welfare, there has to be some balance in the argument. We surely have to accept that, if 314,000 cattle are slaughtered, that in itself is something of a potential animal welfare crisis. What we are all trying to achieve is a healthy badger population living alongside a healthy cattle population.

I would like to know about the science. We are the only country in the European Union, and I believe in the world, that has protected badgers. Has that led to the increase that we have seen in the badger population? Has that, in itself, contributed to the spread of TB in the badger population?

I would now like to raise one or two questions for the Minister to respond to. In the previous Session, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at what the cull’s parameters should be, and I applaud the fact that the Government’s pilot scheme seems, to all intents and purposes, to be following those that we laid down. I should add that I welcome the Minister to his place, and I look forward to his summing up the debate.

If we are to tackle the vaccine situation, we need to deal with a number of remaining issues, and I would welcome the Minister bringing us up to date on them. I applaud the work of the Food and Environment Research Agency, which operates in my constituency and other parts of the country. In Wales, the cost of an injectable vaccine for badgers was estimated at about £662 per badger in 2012. An injectable BCG vaccine has been available for use since March 2012, but there are obviously challenges in using it. To be cost-effective, deployment would have to focus on areas where the vaccine would have the biggest impact. The cost of injecting badgers with vaccine is huge. An oral baited vaccine for badgers, which can be laid at setts, is likely to be cheaper and more practical. I would be interested to know whether the definition of such a vaccine has moved on and whether we are closer to that taking place. Furthermore, from the evidence it received, the Select Committee understood that the current skin test to detect TB in cattle would miss one in four infected cows. Liver fluke, Johne’s disease and even pregnancy may have an impact on the result of a skin test.

How much progress has been made, since the Committee adopted its report, on allowing the vaccination of cattle under European law? That is a vexatious issue. How welcome is vaccination among our friends and allies among other European countries? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that the treatment and control of TB has not been achieved anywhere unless TB has been tackled in the wildlife population. In the long term, vaccination—particularly of cattle, but also of badgers—would be a good way forward, but will the Minister let us know where we are on the vaccination of cattle under European law and how close we are to rolling out field trials in this country, as required under EU law?

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

As I set out to the hon. Lady, there are a number of schemes in place. Some are still paying out and will do so until the end of the financial year. If she has particular concerns about issues in her part of the world, I would be happy to meet her, as ever, to discuss them, but those schemes are available to all those affected by flooding during the period of extreme weather from early December last year through to the end of April.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

More homes were flooded in 2012-13 across the Yorkshire region, so I hope the Minister might meet a delegation of Yorkshire MPs to consider how our roads and bridges might best be recovered. What progress has been made with the Treasury on having one fund—one budget—between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure for total expenditure on flood spending? That would help communities to recover more quickly and end the senseless rows about the size of the pump and which budget it should come from.

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee for her question, raising issues to do with transport recovery, which have been well supported by the Department for Transport. I encourage my hon. Friend and other colleagues from Yorkshire to continue to discuss that with Ministers from that Department. On the distribution of the maintenance, revenue and capital money that we have invested in flood defences and coastal risk management—a record amount of money—we continue to discuss with the Treasury whether flexibilities might be helpful in this regard. The Select Committee’s work has been of great help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

There are a number of very impressive senior women in the Church of England, including cathedral deans such as the one to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. There are also women archdeacons and others who I am sure will be in contention for early appointment as women bishops in the Church of England.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

6. What guidance the commissioners follow when making investments; and if he will make a statement.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

The investments of the Church Commissioners are the responsibility of the assets committee. They are guided by a professional investment team supported by external advisers and the advice of the Church of England ethical investment advisory group.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I still seek what guidance and criteria the Church Commissioners follow. What is the level of investment income from Church of England investments as regards the overall revenue?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Church Commissioners have investments of just over £6 billion. From that is generated an annual income of about £100 million, most of which is devoted to clergy pensions, and the rest to helping poorer dioceses across the country, such as Durham and Liverpool, and supporting their mission work. The Church Commissioners are advised by the Ethical Investment Advisory Group. I assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that we take considerable care to monitor any investment that might have an effect in these areas: tobacco, defence, non-military firearms, gambling, pornography, high interest rate lending, stem cell research, alcohol, and genetically modified organisms. For each and every one of those, the assets committee and the Ethical Investment Advisory Group spend hours and hours working to produce detailed policy to try and ensure not only that we do not invest inappropriately but that we use our investments to encourage companies to act responsibly.

Food Fraud

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will develop his point further when he makes his own speech, and that the Minister will do so as well.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As he has already pointed out very eloquently, the Government will be setting up—at a very early date—a cross-departmental Committee, which I think will prevent the same thing from happening again.

On Thursday, the Minister did not have time to respond to an important question that goes to the heart of this issue, namely the question of what is happening in regard to traceability and labelling at European Union level. I hope that we shall be able to stay here all evening and hear about that at first hand from him.

[Roger Williams]

As always, the Chairman of the Select Committee has made a very good point. I listened to what she said on “Farming Today”. Was it on Thursday? I cannot remember. When one is up very early in the morning, the days may not be readily identifiable. Anyway, the hon. Lady made the very good point that the real problem with the horsemeat scandal was that we had never identified the point at which the horsemeat entered the food chain. There have been a number of prosecutions, but they have taken place on a very small scale. Whoever perpetrated this fraud on such a large scale is still out there, and is still, perhaps, waiting for an opportunity to commit either the same or a similar crime.

The real problem is that we do not know where that horsemeat came from. Were the animals slaughtered in a registered slaughterhouse? Were they slaughtered in a farm barn? Was the meat properly looked after? As it turned out, there was not, we understand, a very big threat to public health, but that may have been due more to luck than to judgment.

[Miss McIntosh]

In order to prevent a Select Committee love-in, may I press my hon. Friend a little further? I think that the key proposal from Professor Elliott is the proposal for a food crime unit, with intervention by the police. However, even a close reading of the Secretary of State’s written statement does not make immediately clear what powers the police will have. Perhaps my hon. Friend has had more time to look into the matter than I have.

[Roger Williams]

I have not, but I was going to mention the establishment of a police crime unit, which I think is essential. This was criminal: laws were broken, and people should face the consequences. I hope that the new unit will ensure that those people are brought to book in future, that they are named and shamed, and that they will not be able to have a role in the food industry again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my fellow Committee member, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on their contributions to the debate. Before I begin my speech, I should like to say how sad I was to hear today of the loss of Jim Dobbin. As a microbiologist, he played an important role in the health service and in keeping us all safe. He was a particularly delightful colleague, and I had the pleasure of working with him on the European Scrutiny Committee. Our thoughts are with his friends and family at this very sad time.

My Committee met briefly on Thursday to consider the Elliott report. The Minister also gave a good summing up of the report, and I hope that he will now be able to respond to all our questions. I repeat the request I put to him on Thursday to update the House on the labelling and traceability provisions at European level.

There have been two positive and, I hope, long-lasting developments following the aftermath of the horsemeat scandal. One is that buying meat more locally from butchers and local shops has increased incrementally. That is very welcome and I hope that it will be a lasting trend.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her work on the Committee. I declare an interest in the agri-food sector. Does she agree that, even though it is a good thing to put in all the necessary strategies and traceability mechanisms, if we are going to root out fraud in the food sector—and in any other industry—we need proper deterrents? The perpetrators need to know that they will do time for this. No matter how big a company is, or the reputation that it has had in the past, penalties need to be put in place so that it cannot perpetrate such fraud again. Some people are making millions of pounds out of this.

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has made a similar point. I believe that the new provisions will address this; the use of the criminal law is important. The fact that the City of London fraud police were invited to carry out the examinations was illuminating, in a sense. They are very skilled in tackling business fraud and paper crime. I shall elaborate on that point later.

The second development, which I hope will be long-lasting following the horsemeat scandal, is the emergence of shorter supply chains. A number of hon. Members have already mentioned the comments of the Food and Drink Federation and the testing that has been carried out. We must not forget the cost of that testing. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that such testing will be more regular. I welcome the fact that there will be unannounced testing and auditing of food companies. Will he confirm that the testing will take place not only on the basis of risk assessment?

We can see the lengths to which the retailers are now going from the briefings that they are issuing. We must not forget that they were not necessarily in the best place. One supermarket—a leading household name—had not checked the integrity of its supply chain for months, if not years. That simply cannot be allowed to happen again. The Food and Drink Federation has flagged up certain questions for retailers. It has asked them to identify their key raw materials, asking the simple question, “Where do they come from?” It also asks them to assess how resilient their supply chain is, and how they protect their business from food fraud. This shows just how far the food industry has come.

Like other hon. Members, I was approached by Which? magazine in advance of today’s debate. I took the precaution of contacting my local authorities in North Yorkshire. I am sure it took them time and probably some expense to go through the recent testing, but I have reams of results from North Yorkshire county council, Hambleton district council, Scarborough borough council and Ryedale district council. I say to Which? that it would be helpful to know how extensive its survey was, because such surveys can be alarmist if the message goes out to consumers that our food is in any way unsafe to eat, and we have come on a long journey since the first horsemeat adulteration was found in January 2013. In welcoming this evening’s debate, it is important to accept that the Select Committee has not had the chance to consider collectively the final report and recommendations of Professor Elliott on food security, but it is very welcome that the Secretary of State and the Government have announced that they will accept all the proposals. I am delighted that the two reports on contamination of beef products and on food contamination that the Committee adopted last year form part of this evening’s debate.

[Roger Williams]

One important part of the report is where Professor Elliott says that he anticipates that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology will be keeping a watching brief on how the recommendations are put into place.

[Miss McIntosh]

Indeed. I wish to record how pleased I am that Professor Elliott has agreed in principle to come to discuss his final report findings with us.

It is a matter of regret that no prosecutions leading to conviction have been brought—one might say that the horse has already bolted.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I fully support some of the proposals the hon. Lady has mentioned, and I think there should be criminal prosecutions in this area and more inspections. Have there been any more incidents of horsemeat finding its way into the food chain?

[Miss McIntosh]

Not to my knowledge, but the Minister will be better placed to answer that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, there have been instances—I believe this was in part of Yorkshire, but, thankfully, not in North Yorkshire—where kebabs and other takeaway foods were found not to have been what they were reported to be; we are talking not about processed food there but about other retail outlets. So we must be ever vigilant and the level of testing must remain high. The point raised earlier is key: consumers must now be at the heart of this process, as Professor Elliott has said and the Government and DEFRA have accepted. However, the second note of regret is that we still do not know at which point the adulteration or contamination, whichever we want to call it—my hon. Friend gave some eloquent definitions—entered into the food chain. This was a multimillion-pound business and, as Professor Elliott concluded, these events crossed 26 out of 28 EU member states, which is why it is so important that we must find out where the adulteration took place. Perhaps we will never know that, but if we do not, how can we say to consumers, in all honesty, that we can prevent it from happening again?

Importantly, Professor Elliott’s interim report identified two weak links—two particularly vulnerable areas—in respect of the horsemeat scandal. The first was slabs of cold meat held in cold storage. The second was raw products, and ingredients of processed foods or processed foods, travelling the long distances that we now know they did. I will be honest and say that I have not had chance to go through Professor Elliott’s report line by line, but it is extremely important that the Minister reassures us this evening on the Europol aspect, where there has been wilful criminal acts. It is also important that he reassures us that the rest of Europe has tightened up its act. This is not just about Europol and Interpol. I go to markets regularly in my constituency—I tend not to go to abattoirs—and if someone were to string up a cow carcase and a horse carcase, I would be hard-pressed, ignorant as I am, to tell the difference between them. Professor Elliott did us a great favour by spelling out in his interim report, and repeating in his final report, the two most vulnerable aspects in this country. I do not think that he was being in any way alarmist, so we must not lose sight of the fact that he did say that we are still vulnerable to such adulteration in future. The purpose of the Which? report is probably to say that the criminals will move on, and they have moved on from the meat, slab or carcase form—the processed form—to other retail outlets selling kebabs and other takeaways.

The Committee’s report and Professor Elliott’s conclusions show the concerns about the reduced capacity for testing, which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. The Committee report stressed the need—we took powerful evidence in the Select Committee—for more public analysts to do the testing. The hon. Gentleman made the point well that it must not be the innocent party—the farmers—who should pay for that. Obviously, the closer to home it is produced and the shorter the supply chain, the more confidence we can have in our food and in our meat. I am a meat eater who represents a large livestock producing —meat producing—area. I want to make sure that we have absolute confidence in the production in this country, and I believe it is second to none.

Professor Elliott’s final recommendations are on the national laboratory service and the drawing together of the nine—I believe it is—public laboratory services. He specifically says that public laboratory services need to be protected, that they are in “a fragile position” and that the review should be seen as

“an opportunity to develop a sustainable national asset.”

A lot can be done through DEFRA, the Food and Environment Research Agency, which is in my constituency, and LGC, a major science service company, to develop these centres of excellence—that would be pleasing indeed. He goes on to say that the Government should:

“Work in partnership with Public Health England and local authorities with their own laboratories to consider…options for an integrated shared scientific service around food standards”.

The Minister must grasp that point and reassure us—whether it is the labs, the food analysts or the police—that they will be given a specific target and resources to do that. It is important that the Government address the potentially reduced capacity for testing arising from the stranglehold on local authority budgets. Will the Minister use his good offices to speak to the relevant Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether this money for public testing and public analysts could be ring-fenced? That would put a lot of people’s minds at rest. So we need the national laboratory service and we need to ensure that the level of food testing by local authorities remains high. These unannounced audits and tests by the food industry will be a very positive development. Perhaps we need to be reassured again that shorter supply chains are in place and will not be jeopardised in the future.

Briefly, the food crime unit will go to the heart of preventing food adulteration incidents in the future. We need to see real leadership. The fact that the new unit will be placed within the FSA is pleasing. There was some criticism of the FSA in the Pat Troop report and in our own report. It was felt that perhaps the agency needed to co-operate more with local authorities and with other FSAs across the European Union. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that will be a top priority.

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) rightly touched on the matter of crisis management. The Government must clarify the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies before another incident occurs—it could be an incident of food safety rather than food adulteration—and ensure that all incidents are regarded as a risk to public health until there is evidence to the contrary. That was in the Troop report in June 2013. Will the Minister assure us tonight that NHS England will make that matter a top priority?

The Secretary of State set out in her written statement that she would like to see the food crime unit set up by the end of the year, which is pleasing. Will the Minister assure the House that the resources will follow the responsibilities and set out who will pay? I was very taken by the two models set out in Professor Elliott’s report. The Danish model was found to be slightly less adequate than the Dutch one, but if we look at the costings on page 138 of the report, we find that they are very high for the Dutch model. The population of Denmark is 5.5 million, and the population of Holland is between 10 million and 11 million Obviously, the costs will increase incrementally; one figure that is mentioned is between £2.8 million and £36 million. Can the Minister explain how those costings have been reached and promise that the money will match the responsibilities? How does he think the money will be raised and who will pay?

Importantly, will the police have the ability to make arrests? Apparently, police in Denmark do not have that power, but they do in Holland. Under the Elliott model, the police will have the powers to swoop and investigate. Presumably, they will then be able to make an arrest. As concerns on that matter have been expressed this evening, it is extremely important that the Minister clarifies whether arrests can be made. Furthermore, will the Minister set up a detailed timetable for implementing the recommendation, confirm that the food crime unit will be in place by December, provide an update on labelling and traceability and tell us whether the police will have the right powers in this regard?

Finally, in November 2012, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland alerted the FSA in England to a potential food adulteration problem, as meat was being sourced from the same suppliers. No testing took place in England until we had the horsemeat adulteration confirmed in January 2013. What reassurance can the Minister give the House tonight that we will not find ourselves in that situation again in a year, two years’ or three years’ time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I did hear that complaint and I must say that what was coming into our ports from outside the EU was a great concern of mine. I do not think sufficient precautions were in place, although they have improved since. Within the EU, although there were theoretical paper trails, when they were examined in the context of the horsemeat scandal they were found to be relatively easy to falsify. That cannot be acceptable and we need co-operation on that between member states.

The paramount responsibility of the Food Standards Agency and of Government is to maintain the safety of food. I do not want anything to be done in terms of the composition that takes away from the primary responsibility of ensuring that when consumers eat something, they are safe from infection or poisoning. That is not to say that composition is unimportant. It gives consumers something other than what they think they have bought. As we have heard, for some communities that is of very great significance, particularly those that have religious requirements about what they eat, but everybody is entitled to be sold what they think they are buying according to the label that the product bears. If people are deliberately setting out to sell something other than that, there is a very simple word for it, and that is fraud. The title of today’s debate is “Food Fraud” and the significant point is the fraud, not the food. It is a crime, and one that needs to be treated as serious. We need the apparatus to ensure that we interdict when it comes into the country and that we ensure prosecution when people involved are in this country.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am following my hon. Friend’s elegant words very closely indeed. The Secretary of State when he was the Minister responsible for farms and food, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), promised that the perpetrators of this crime would be brought to book. It must be a source of great disappointment and regret to my hon. Friend, as it is to me, that no convictions or successful prosecutions have been brought.

[Mr Heath]

I find it enormously frustrating because, frankly, the then Secretary of State and I did absolutely everything we could to mobilise and energise enforcement agencies across Europe to try to ensure that the problem was traced. I can say now because I am free to do so—the Minister may feel more constrained—that I believe that at the root of this was large-scale, European-based organised crime and that more could and should have been done by other member states to get the bottom of it.

It was a very convoluted story—we know that—and it was not easy, but I felt that having raised the issue very effectively in European Council meetings, obtained the involvement of the Commission and persuaded other member states to take it seriously, there was a palpable feeling once the press and media furore had died down that some member states were suggesting, “Let’s not push it too hard, shall we, chaps? Let’s not remind people that we had a problem and let’s just hope it all goes away.” I do not think that is good enough. I do not think that the UK Government took that view, but I am not convinced that others did not feel that once the storm had passed, it was easier simply to carry on as before. The trouble is that that meant that those people who were making an awful lot of money—we are talking about huge sums across a European nexus—continued to do so, which means that the problem will arise again.

We in this country and manufacturers and retailers across Europe made the situation worse because of the complexity of the supply chain. That has been mentioned time and again, and the more we looked into it, the more extraordinary seemed the number of different hands that some of these products went through across so many jurisdictions in Europe. One only had to look at the price of the finished product and the number of people who were supposedly making a profit to realise that that could not possibly be done in a legal way. Some of our big retailers, which have very sophisticated procurement offices, perhaps had some responsibility to ask more questions. They do now, but they should have been asking at an earlier stage about how so-called beef could travel all the way around Europe only to be sold as eight burgers for less than £1 on a British supermarket shelf. It could not be done legally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point well. It is important that the Government, of which DEFRA is one Department, lead by example, and I feel that they are doing that.

In the wake of the horsemeat scandal, it was clear that consumers want to see more British food on the shelves of supermarkets. They want to buy more British food and eat more British food, whether they get it through schools and hospitals, or by buying it in their local supermarket and from local producers. Buying British food is important, because animal welfare in our country is second to none. Our farmers are rightly proud of their world-beating record, which sets us apart from other global producers. We must celebrate that. For me, that is a gold standard, which we have to maintain.

I draw the House’s attention to the fantastic but often overlooked red tractor assurance scheme, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). The logo, with the Union flag, shows not only that the food was produced in the UK, but that the highest standards of animal welfare, food safety, traceability and environmental management have been rigorously enforced. Almost 90,000 farmers now take part in the scheme, and the retail value of food carrying the logo is now estimated to be more than £12 billion a year. Next week is red tractor week, and I urge everyone to support the scheme where possible. Young people are being asked to become red tractor recruits, to spread the word of high-quality British produce on social media. Sadly, I can no longer claim to be a young person, nor have I ever been an avid tweeter, unlike some other Members, but I hope my contribution will convince some consumers to put British produce into their shopping basket—or to buy local, which we have not touched on yet—

[Miss McIntosh]

Yes we have.

[Julian Sturdy]

I do apologise—buying local has been talked about already, but it is worth mentioning again. The best form of traceability and quality assurance is to go down to the local butcher, greengrocer or fishmonger and buy local. When we buy local, we know where the food has come from—we can ask the butcher where the meat has come from, even down to the individual farm.

The importance of farming to our economy should not be underestimated. Food production and farming contributes almost £100 billion to the British economy each year, employing almost 4 million people in the process. We can be proud that farming remains a family affair, with 90% of the more than 140,000 registered farming businesses run as sole traders or family partnerships. Food and drink products are now the country’s fourth largest export sector, with sales booming by about 5% a year. Indeed, some of the UK’s most lucrative exports are now from the farming sector, with lamb exports up 8% year on year, cheese exports up 9% and dairy produce up an incredible 18%. Such successes play an important part in creating jobs and fuelling our economic recovery and must be encouraged to continue.

We must also take the necessary steps to safeguard our hard-won reputation of excellence, which could easily be jeopardised by rogue elements operating in an increasingly complex international marketplace. Professor Elliott rightly calls for a zero tolerance approach as one of the pillars of food integrity. I understand that, at the request of the Food Standards Agency, the Sentencing Council is considering whether there is an opportunity to provide fresh guidance on food and hygiene offences. I urge that tough sanctions be brought to bear on anyone who would not only jeopardise the health of British consumers, but cheapen the reputation of the agricultural industry, which farmers have worked so hard to rebuild after the scares of the 1990s.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s response to the report, which recognises not only the value of British farming, but the importance of educating children about quality food. Cookery and food education will be a vital part of the national curriculum, and young children will now enjoy a much better understanding, not only of where their food comes from, but of why it is so important to eat fresh and healthy produce.

I could not let this debate pass without mentioning food security, as it remains a fundamental concern across the country. We are only 68% self-sufficient in food—a level that has, sadly, steadily declined over the past 20 years. Well meaning but poorly implemented schemes such as the common agricultural policy have limited our ability to increase food production in a sustainable way. Our competitive edge in quality and our capacity to increase yields can be promoted only through better understanding of the farming sector and investments in new technology.

It is all too easy to forget that the industrial revolution began with a revolution in Britain’s farming practices, transforming our island nation into the world’s foremost power for more than a century. With such a proud heritage we must remain focused on increasing yields, boosting exports and safeguarding our gold standards in quality produce and animal welfare.

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

I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. We may be few in number, but we have had a very insightful debate with a lot of quality in the speeches, with more to come as well.

The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), in response to an intervention, accused me of bringing politics into the debate—heaven forfend! That is my day job; I am a politician. I try to deal with evidence and rationality, but I am also elected democratically and I am a politician. If the hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in his place, does not understand that, I will happily sit down with him over a coffee.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on introducing the debate. We go back a very long way. He talked about the 2001 election, which was delayed because of foot and mouth. I recall that well, because we were sparring partners, but he was also seeing daily, alongside farmers, the horror of the burning carcases. He has great experience in this area. He reminded us of the importance of Elliott, food fraud, food criminality, traceability and all the aspects of this to the farming community. As many hon. Members have said, those who are often hit really badly are the primary producers—farmers. It is they who get squeezed, whether in price wars or in burdens being laid on them. We need to guard against that.

The hon. Gentleman, like many others, strongly supports the proposals in the Elliott report. As hon. Members will know, I have spent my weekend poring over every line and word of it, as well as other briefings and so on. Professor Elliott makes it crystal clear that not only the eight pillars of food integrity but every detail must hold together. These proposals are not to be cherry-picked; equal effort must be put into every aspect.

During an intervention on the hon. Gentleman, we briefly discussed the FSA’s interim proposals, which some would argue have a different emphasis from the final report. However, it is about more than degrees of emphasis, because the Troop proposals mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the EFRA Committee, among others, expressed a preference for putting these responsibilities into the FSA. Even though this is slightly modified in the report, Elliott makes it clear that if that is not going to be the case, he wants the matter to be pursued in a different way with equal rigour and clarity. Let us see how it emerges.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has great experience in these matters. I served alongside him when he was the Minister responsible for food, farming and agriculture. He brought a great deal of experience to bear, as he always does in these debates. He talked about not having the full impact of this falling on farming communities. He discussed, as did others, including the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), the importance of the red tractor assurance scheme. That is an important element of some of the briefings from the National Farmers Union, the Food and Drink Federation, and Which? magazine—I am sorry, not Which? magazine but Which? the consumers association. It used to be a magazine when I was a young man but now it is far more than that.

My hon. Friend said that Elliott is proposing not to increase burdens but to reduce the burdens on the good guys and put the burdens on to the bad guys and the criminals. He talked about the importance of a strategic laboratory service, which is crucial. He asked whether the resources were sufficient for this very wide-ranging set of proposals to do Elliott justice. He referred to the machinery of government changes in the FSA. Like many Members, he queried why prosecutions are so few and far between and often do not go after the big fish in the pond.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has a great deal of experience in this area. I commend not only her speech but the work that the EFRA Committee has done over time on putting a spotlight on to this issue with considerable detail and forensic analysis. She opened her remarks by paying tribute to a friend of all of us right across the House—the late Jim Dobbin. We are all very sad and our thoughts are with his family. One of his great causes related to DEFRA—open access and the right to roam. There is nothing more political than putting one foot in front of the other and walking out into the countryside. He was a great believer in that. In fact, I have a debate about such matters on Wednesday afternoon in Westminster Hall, and anybody who wants to can come and take part.

The hon. Lady talked about the desirability of shorter supply chains. A lot of the retailers have “got” that now, but we have to keep the pressure on. On the day of the National Farmers Union conference a year ago, one retailer—I will not name it for fear of embarrassment but it knows who it is—took out full-page adverts with a big banner headline saying, “We get it”, that talked about how it would transform its business. I have met it subsequently, and it is trying to do that. It is our biggest supermarket chain. A lot of farmers are now watching for it to carry that through relentlessly.

In an intervention on the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), the hon. Lady talked about penalties, which the hon. Member for York Outer also mentioned. We need to consider not only what the Sentencing Council is doing, and stronger penalties, but broader penalties so that some of these cases do not have to end up in court. That could be to do with naming and shaming, but there might be McCrory-style types of penalties that deal in the right way with relatively minor offences early on and deal in a heavy-duty way with the big offenders as well.

It was asked whether more incidents have taken place post-horsemeat. It is interesting to refer to the very good House of Commons Library briefing, which draws on Elliott’s observation that in 2007 there were 49 reports of food fraud to the FSA’s food fraud database, while in 2013 it received 1,538 reports. According to the National Audit Office, local authorities reported 1,380 cases of food fraud in 2012, up by two thirds since 2010. That is the scale of what we are looking at. That emphasises the importance of local authority intelligence, which a few hon. Members mentioned, and of how this ties together. It will not all be carried out by serious crime people; local information on the ground will open it out.

[Miss McIntosh]

As I hope the hon. Gentleman will confirm, there is not sufficient intelligence. A lot of the testing is done purely on the basis of risk assessment. The key is not just the food crime unit but the fact that there will be spot checks—unannounced audits. Surely that has to be a good thing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister will also say that that is the way forward. It is not only about routine checks or risk assessment-based checks but turning up unannounced.

The hon. Lady rightly made a point about Troop and the FSA leadership, and clarity of roles. She also talked about the police’s powers of arrest, and I will be interested in the Minister’s response to that.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), a former Minister in the Department who also has great experience, discussed the importance of cultural change, which is crucial. He rightly talked about the importance of driving this through every area, including catering. It has to go deep into every individual sector and employee as well as the bosses and the leadership. The importance of caterers was brought home in the horsemeat scandal, because horsemeat was appearing not only in hospitals and schools but in the food used by caterers who were supplying Royal Ascot and the royal family—so at least we were all in it together.

On the complexity of the supply chain, Elliott says that we have to recognise that, even though it is more desirable to have shorter supply chains and to encourage food retailers and providers to move towards them, we are in a global system, under which global intelligence and the pursuit of crime come into play. He also says, wisely, that ultimately the food price wars that take place from time to time, including now, are not good for the consumer if they jeopardise food authenticity or—heaven help us—food safety.

The hon. Member for York Outer spoke up strongly for British farming and food produce. He talked about the gold standard of British farming and I agree with him. Curiously, when we were on the Government Benches, others would shout at us about gold-plating, but that is exactly the gold standard he was talking about. That is the reason our exports to many other countries are doing well—they demand the standards of animal welfare, hygiene and testing that this country delivers. Regulation is a darn good thing when it protects the consumer and allows us to export around the world. Curiously, the FSA has traditionally been looked on as the gold standard of food regulation.

The hon. Gentleman also talked wisely about the importance of knowing where our food actually comes from. There is a great deal of work to do on that right across the population, ourselves included. There is real value in knowing where food comes from; it ties into so many good things.

The Labour party is very clear—as we were when we were in government—that the consumer has always to be put first. That is why, when in government, we established a strong and independent Food Standards Agency, which had a powerful reach right across Government to regulate this vital industry that creates so many jobs and that wants the very highest standards. However, the changes brought about by tinkering with the machinery of government have jeopardised that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

After the horsemeat scandal erupted in February 2013, the National Audit Office looked at the contributory factors to any delay or confusion. One of the things it pointed fairly and squarely at was the confusion about who was doing what. It pointed the finger at the machinery of government changes. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister, may be saying that he was not confused, but there was certainly confusion between local government and Whitehall, as well as within Whitehall, as to who was doing what. I agree with Troop and with Elliott’s interim findings that it should be put back together again, but we will have to differ on that. The question for the Government is: can they make this work if they are not going to do that?

One of our criticisms relates to the fact that just before we left government in 2010 we published what was at the time a ground-breaking, comprehensive food strategy, “Food 2030”, which followed on from our previous work on “Food Matters”. It mapped out a comprehensive and long-term strategy to ensure the provision of safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food, but it has been left on the shelf. Where is this Government’s overarching strategy to pull everything together? The answer is: there isn’t one.

Labour welcomes and supports fully all the Elliott report’s recommendations, and we will continue to urge the Government for full and speedy implementation. Professor Elliott sets out a new Government-industry partnership, some aspects of which will require a culture change in Government and in industry. He makes sound recommendations for a new food crime unit and a whole framework for national food crime prevention, encompassing Government, the FSA and industry. He calls for—it is interesting that he deals not just with the mechanics—a new mentality to meet the challenges of sourcing from complex international supply chains, and a zero-tolerance approach to food crime. He also fashions detailed proposals on whistleblowing, intelligence-gathering and co-ordinated laboratory and testing services, and stresses the need for leadership at all levels, including in Government. Most of all, he stresses—he puts this top and dead centre—the need to put the consumer first, and we agree.

Labour supports the report and all its recommendations. We believe that the industry is ready to drive the culture changes that Elliott demands and that the consumer and the public deserve. I say to the Minister, however, that we have reservations: we do not have the same confidence that the Government are serious about these changes.

Make no mistake: the Elliott report is not only a series of sound recommendations, but is an expert analysis and critique of the coalition Government’s policy on food governance and food crime. Since 2010 under this coalition Government we have seen the fragmentation of food governance; an ideological fetishism for stripping out regulation for the sake of it, whether that regulation is good for the consumer and industry or not; and front-line cutbacks in inspection at national and local level and in food-testing capabilities.

The Government have also been asleep at the wheel, reacting only when disaster happens, realising too late that cutting the brake cables and unscrewing the steering column was not a good idea. In 2010, one of this Government’s first actions was to split the responsibilities of the FSA, an agency that was, as I have said, previously regarded as the gold standard of consumer protection and industry regulation. It was deliberately fractured, which hampered clarity and leadership in food governance in the UK. It is not just me saying that; others are saying it, too.

The horsemeat scandal was the slow-motion car crash that showed how crazy that decision was. The NAO stated that when a prompt response was required to the breaking horsemeat scandal, there was confusion between, and lack of leadership in, Whitehall Departments and confusion between Whitehall and local government.

Similar, repeated concerns about the mishandling of the FSA and food governance have been raised for some time by the EFRA Committee and many other industry and food policy experts. Labour raised those concerns from the word go.

The interim Elliott report made it clear that the FSA responsibilities should be brought back together. That would deal with the NAO view that fragmentation had led to needless confusion and additional complexity. The final report has stepped back slightly, but it is still commendably forthright on the need to put rigour and reach back into the FSA.

On that and many other issues, the report carries implicit and sometimes explicit criticisms of this Government’s approach to food policy and food crime. It calls for a more robust FSA, retaining its independence, and for far greater co-ordination, which has been lacking, across government and industry. It highlights the absence of high-level round-table meetings between the chair of the FSA and the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which seems to me to be a shocking omission and a glaring fault bearing in mind the fragmentation of responsibilities since 2010.

The report cites evidence from recent local authority testing that appears to show high levels of failure, particularly in meat authenticity testing, which possibly indicates fraud or the criminal adulteration of food. That is deeply worrying when set against a near halving in the number of DEFRA officials working on food authenticity since 2010, as revealed by an answer given to me by the Minister in July. It is even more worrying in the light of the immense pressures on local authorities, which have led to severe cutbacks in local food inspections.

Professor Elliott does not pull any punches. He states on page 49 of his report:

“Enforcement activity is…very vulnerable when local authority services are cut to the bone.”

He also draws attention to the average 27% reduction in the number of trading standards officers dealing with food matters, and to the 40% cut in overall trading standards services during the lifetime of this Government. Concerns for consumer protection and for the reputation of the industry are heightened when, as Elliott notes, the number of public analyst laboratories has been reduced from 10 in 2010 to six today. I simply say to the Minister that he has his work cut out if he is to explain how, against the background of cuts in front-line FSA inspection, front-line local authority inspection and laboratory facilities, he can do what Elliott asks and put the consumer first.

Given that we are now four and a half years into this Government, the Minister must explain why the UK has been behind the curve and behind European counterparts in establishing a food crime unit. That led Elliott to note that the Dutch crime unit could find no one in the UK—whether in a crime unit or anywhere else—to speak to when the horsemeat scandal happened. Had the Government’s reluctance to place any burdens on industry given them an aversion to being proactive in such a way? Had Ministers looked at the threat of food adulteration and food crime since taking office? I understand that the Minister was not in office for the whole of that time, but I am sure that he has discussed it with his officials.

One month after the horsemeat scandal erupted, a survey by the consumer organisation Which? found that six in 10 shoppers had changed their shopping habits, and that trust had fallen by a quarter. A year after the scandal, an Ipsos MORI survey showed that 95% of consumers remembered the horsemeat scandal. As has already been mentioned, the latest polling by Which? has shown this month that 55% of people are worried that a food fraud incident will happen again, that a third of them do not have confidence that the food they buy contains what it says on the label—by the way, that goes up to half for people who have takeaways on a Saturday night—and a quarter maintain that they have changed the type of meat they buy. Seven out of 10 consumers have told Which? that more action needs to be taken. The damage is lasting, so we need to get this right.

Let me ask the Minister some initial questions; in the months to come, we will return with more. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton suggested, will the Minister publish a detailed timetable for the implementation of every recommendation in the Elliott review so that the Government’s warm words can be measured against actual implementation? Will he give assurances that the resources for the new crime unit and the crime framework to go with it can be found from within existing FSA funding?

Will the Minister now apologise on behalf of the Government for the decision to fragment the responsibilities of the FSA, or does he continue to ignore the argument that that decision damaged its power, authority and independence? Does he accept the Elliott proposal that the FSA should continue as a non-ministerial department so as to retain its necessary independence from the Government? How does he answer critics who believe that the FSA has gone beyond the necessary close co-operation with the industry and is now too close to the industry to be a useful and critical friend? The recent decision not to publish campylobacter rates is one such example.

Bearing in mind the need for a more robust and rigorous FSA based on the report’s proposals and the need for the FSA to have the effective and independent leadership identified by the Elliott report, will the Minister give us an update on the search for a new chair? Will he confirm that the person shortly to be proposed as chair will appear before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee before final confirmation in post?

[Miss McIntosh]

indicated assent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

They will, which is great.

What other foodstuffs are of primary concern for authenticity fraud, and which are on the priorities list for criminal activity at present? How will the Minister guarantee that the high number of authenticity failures can be identified now and in future against the backdrop of cuts in the front-line services involved in food authenticity? As so many hon. Members have asked, 18 months after the horsemeat scandal erupted, why have prosecutions been so few and far between? Does he share the public’s frustration that criminals appear to be getting away with messing with their food?

Elliott repeatedly argues for improved co-operation on an international and especially a European level to tackle food crime and fraud. Does the Minister expect us to believe that the Government’s general approach to European co-operation and the specific Tory proposals to opt out of 130 areas of European policing and justice measures will help the fight against international food crime? If so, has he done an impact assessment of those proposals? Will he support calls for an urgent review of criminal, financial and other penalties to toughen and widen the measures against rogues and criminals, and to protect the many good food businesses? Finally—for now—will he guarantee consumers and the industry that another horsemeat scandal or the like will not happen in the short time left of this Government?

Let me end by saying that this Government have their work cut out to persuade the industry and consumers that they are serious about tackling food crime and fraud because, as they say in police dramas, this Government have got “previous”. Their track record of delay and dither when facing a crisis, their ideological aversion to effective regulation and their wholesale absence of leadership and strategic thinking on food mean that they are in the dock as a serial offender. We urge the Government to get serious about food crime, food governance and food strategy. We will support them if they drive through all the recommendations with the rigour they deserve, because consumers and this vital UK industry deserve no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The FSA manages and monitors the work of local authorities, but one of Professor Elliott’s recommendations is that we should have a new committee on food integrity and food fraud. I will chair that committee, and it will be attended by my colleagues and a Minister from the Department of Health. We will discuss those issues and monitor the situation to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.

Let me mention some of the other points that Members have raised. Sanctions were mentioned, and it is important to note that the maximum penalty is already 10 years. Sentences are ultimately a matter for the courts and the Ministry of Justice, but 10 years is quite a significant sentence. A number of Members asked why we have been so slow to get prosecutions, but as many will know, the City of London police are leading the investigation. There have been five arrests and two prosecutions, which are currently going through the courts. Hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment on ongoing legal cases, but we should recognise that the City of London police have faced challenges as they have had to engage with many different police forces across the European Union to bring prosecutions together, which has taken some time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the issue of labelling in the European Union. From April next year we will introduce improved country of origin labelling measures for pork, lamb and goat. In future—just as has been the case for beef for the last decade or so—pigs and sheep must be reared and slaughtered in the country that claims to be the country of origin. That is similar to the situation that pertains for beef production. On traceability, provisions have been in place for more than 12 years, and EC regulation 178/2002 requires all member states to establish a means of monitoring where the food has come from at every stage of production. That legal requirement is enforced by the FSA in this country and by other member states.

My hon. Friend made the good point—my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer also alluded to this—that however good the traceability and labelling systems in place, a long supply chain is not conducive to eliminating food fraud. It is important for retailers to look at their supply chains and try to shorten them. It is also encouraging that many consumers have taken more interest in where their food comes from, and we need both consumers and retailers to take a little more interest.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he did not have the chance to reply to this point last Thursday. Will the police have powers of arrest? We will not be rushed by future business, Madam Deputy Speaker. We need to know whether the police will have powers of arrest, and who will pick up the bill for the additional costs of the food crime unit.

[George Eustice]

The key point is that the new food crime unit will have investigative powers, and it is envisaged that people from the National Crime Agency in the police force will be seconded to that unit. As my hon. Friend knows, the police always have powers of arrest—indeed, they have arrested people in this current investigation. The new food crime unit will be properly linked to the police force so that it has those powers.

Finally, let me turn to lab capacity. Professor Elliott raises a specific concern about whether there is consistency between existing private labs and their approach to testing. As a result, we accept his recommendation and have asked the analytical methods working group—an advisory panel to the Government—to consider that issue and ensure consistency. We had no lack of lab capacity in the crisis last year. In fact, our excellent laboratories at the Food and Environment Research Agency in York were on stand-by if they were needed, although in the event they were not. Private labs like LCG, which I will visit tomorrow, led on most of that work. My hon. Friend also mentioned the Danish model and expressed a view—perhaps because she has Danish roots—that it is better than the Dutch model. When it comes to the food crime unit, it is difficult to compare the Danish or the Dutch model with what we have in the UK because we have some 2,500 trading standards officers in local authorities, who are an integral part of our protection in that area.

It is perhaps fitting to conclude where my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer ended his remarks, and with Professor Elliott’s conclusion that we have some of the safest food in the world. I completely agree with him that we should protect the reputation of our hard-working farmers. The Government have introduced a new Government procurement plan which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) pointed out, will encourage greater sourcing of local food. We are also working to encourage more schools to take a greater interest in and promote food and an appreciation of food in the curriculum. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the discussion. We have covered many detailed issues, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire on securing the debate.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this timely debate.

I refer Members to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on dog control and welfare and the Government response to it, and in welcoming the Minister, my hon. Friend for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his position, may I add that I hope his views have not changed too much since he contributed to that report? I also support the comment of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South that a review of existing legislation is needed.

In the limited time available, I want to make some brief points. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the role of self-regulation, but I am slightly confused as to why he put so much emphasis on pet shops, because my understanding is that they are the one part of the trade that is pretty much regulated; the evidence we received in our report, which was published together with our recommendations, suggests that the Pet Animals Act 1951 pretty much covers that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he has had any representations that the Act should be improved or reviewed.

I would also like the Minister to update us on the Government’s response to our report: are the Government working with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group on the issue of sales of pets online, and, in particular, are they supporting the work to develop a voluntary code of practice? If the voluntary code is to succeed, it must have good animal welfare at its heart.

The message from the House today should be that there is a role for self-regulation. Any responsible potential dog or cat owner should not be buying puppies or kittens where the mother is not present. That is so self-evident that I wonder whether we need not to legislate on it but simply to go out and educate the public.

I congratulate all the charities involved. They briefed the Select Committee in the context of our report, and it is important to recognise their work, although the following is not an exhaustive list: Blue Cross in my constituency; Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; the Dogs Trust; the Dog Rescue Federation; the wonderfully and aptly named Four Paws. I also want to pay tribute to those who fund these charities. In doing so, they are taking many stray dogs and cats off our streets.

I am asking the Minister today to tackle the rogue backstreet breeders and the rogue importers who import animals from puppy farms across the European Union. I hope that he will take this opportunity to update the House on internet advertising and on the voluntary code. Each and every one of us must do everything possible to discourage irresponsible dog breeders, and we need to set a lower threshold for licensing breeders.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether his views have changed since he made his positive and welcome contribution to our discussions when adopting our report on dog control and welfare. Does he, for example, still hold to the view that, under the legislation, five litters a year should be the maximum, because a bitch would not be in a good enough state to have any more? That was his personal view at that time, and we benefited from his sterling contribution to our report. Has his view changed since he was with us on the Committee? I remind the House that the Committee’s conclusion was that five litters a year was too many. We recommended that a requirement to breed no more than two litters a year should be written on the face of the licence. Also, we would like to support better publicity for puppy contracts. I commend our report and recommendations to the House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who I know has been a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I am sure he will recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) said, that I pursued these issues when I was a member of the Select Committee. It would be remiss of me of not to mention Mono, my now deceased pet dog. He was a rescue dog from the RSPCA who, like many others, was a wonderfully dedicated friend, albeit with some behavioural issues.

Let me deal first with some of the issues on which the Government have made progress—tackling irresponsible owners, for example. We have increased the penalty for serious dog attacks and have made it an offence to have a dog attack on private land. We have tightened the law, too, when it comes to dog attacks on guide dogs, and we have introduced compulsory chipping. I recognise, however, that today’s theme has been about a different issue—the welfare of puppies. I have always been clear that we must look after the welfare of puppies and ensure that they are properly socialised. As many hon. Members have mentioned, that is crucial for the behaviour of the dogs as they grow up and mature.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) asked me to tear up my script and speak from the heart. I can confirm that I never asked for a script in the first place. I scribbled some notes of what Members said, and I want to use the available time to deal with as many points as I can.

On pet passports, I can confirm that a new EU regulation is tightening the rules of the EU pet passport scheme. From December this year, it will no longer be possible for a dog under 12 weeks to be vaccinated prior to transportation under the scheme. There is then a three-week period throughout which the puppy must remain in residence before it can be moved. In practice, that means that from December this year, no puppy or dog can be lawfully transported to this country under the pet passport scheme unless it is at least 15 weeks old.

Many hon. Members rightly raised the issue of the internet. The biggest concerns put to us by the animal welfare charities related not so much to the problem of puppy farms as to that of backstreet breeders that are completely unregulated and unlicensed. In many cases, the people involved are not the right people to be breeding dogs at all, and in the worst cases, they maltreat the puppies deliberately to make them violent by giving them violent traits—the so-called “status dogs”. That is a major concern, which is why at the end of last year, my noble Fried Lord de Mauley brought together a group in connection with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to put in place a voluntary code, which has been running since the beginning of the year. I can tell hon. Members today that, since that code was put in place, 100,000 adverts have been removed from the internet. I pay tribute to the work done by the internet companies that acted so responsibly and by all the volunteers who took part in monitoring the internet for that purpose. Given the scale of the problem, I hope hon. Members will understand that making further progress on the internet continues to be our main priority.

Let me touch on the contentious issue of the five-litter threshold, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She is right. When I sat on the Committee, we highlighted some concerns about the five-litter threshold being too high. Hon. Members who follow what has happened will know that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 states that anyone carrying on a business of breeding and selling puppies must have a licence, irrespective of the number of litters. However, a second clause, always intended as an anti-avoidance clause, said that irrespective of who owns the puppies on a particular premise, a licence is compulsory if there are more than five litters. That was to prevent people from claiming that some of dogs belonged to their brothers, sisters, father or whoever.

Over the last few years, however, or since the legislation was introduced, it has been apparent that local authorities have taken the five-litter threshold to be the one to work towards. It became something of a mystery, which we managed to solve last night. The reason is that in 1999 when the Act was put in place under the last Government, the Home Office sent out a circular indicating for local authorities that in most situations five litters should be taken as the threshold to use.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

Let me finish the point. Since that time, it would be fair to say—from all the representations made during today’s debate and from the recommendations of the Select Committee—that this is the wrong way to interpret the legislation. Those carrying on a business of breeding and selling dogs should be required to have a licence. I can confirm that we will write to local authorities to provide new clarity through new guidance so that they can interpret the Act in the spirit intended by the House today.

Pet shops are a key item of today’s debate. It is important to recognise that only about 2% of pet shops sell cats and dogs—around 70 in total—and they are already regulated and licensed. They are regulated under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South asked me to clarify whether local authorities have the additional power to place restrictions on which animals can be sold at a licensed pet shop establishment. I can confirm that they do have the power to restrict the number of animals that can be sold. He asked, too, about the issue of ambiguity and contestability in that context. Let me clarify that the intention of the provision is for local authorities to judge on a case-by-case basis whether a particular premise is suitable for a particular animal to be sold. It is not necessary for local authorities to change the law; it is for them to have considerable discretion in making a judgment about whether it is appropriate for certain animals to be sold on the authority’s premises.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) made the important point that much can be done within the existing regulations. I agree. In January this year, along with the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and many other charities and organisations, we contributed to some model licence conditions that were made available to all local authorities and were published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. These included 50 pages of recommendations about the sorts of conditions that should be included in a licence for dog-breeding premises. There were strict provisions on the need for social interaction with humans, which should apply for the whole day if the buyers were present all the time.

In addition, in September 2013 we published the model conditions for pet vending, which also set out strict conditions for pet shops about the need for interaction with staff and humans. It is specifically recommended that at least four times a day a human should spend at least 20 minutes with the puppies on sale. We have already put in place important guidance on these issues.

I would like to conclude by saying that we have had a really important debate. I, too, have received many hundreds of letters on the issue and it is clearly of great importance to the country. We have 8 million dogs in this country and we are a nation of animal lovers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. I am still passionate about science and maths, and getting more women into those areas and indeed into agriculture. Getting more high-skilled people to look at agriculture as a career option would provide a fantastic opportunity. We are investing £150 million in the mobile infrastructure project to help address those areas of low mobile coverage at the moment.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her position and very much look forward to her appearing before the Select Committee. From 1 January, all farm payments will have to be digital by default. In Thirsk and Malton, 22% will have no fast-speed coverage, yet that just happens to be where all the farmers are. Will she hold out a hand of friendship to those farmers to ensure that they can access broadband for their farm payments?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will be delighted to work with the hon. Lady and the Select Committee; I am very much looking forward to that. We know that 70% of farmers are already processing their payments online. She is absolutely right that some do not have access to online payments at the moment, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has responsibility for farming, is making centres available that will be able to advise those farmers and help them get online.

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

3. What funds were allocated to church repairs from the Heritage Lottery Fund in each of the past three years.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

Over the past three years, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded just under £75 million to 623 projects to repair listed places of worship in England through the grants for places of worship programme and its predecessor, the repairs grants for places of worship programme, which is operated in partnership with English Heritage.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for that reply. It is, indeed, a large sum of money. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the level at which VAT is set on church repairs and make a plea to reduce it to 5%, which would be perfectly legal?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I remind my hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been incredibly generous towards the Church. In May 2012, he and the Government agreed to give £30 million extra a year to the Church so that the listed places of worship grant scheme could enable the equivalent to the VAT bill to be paid on all alterations and repairs to listed buildings. No church should be deterred from undertaking essential repairs and restoration due to fears about the cost of VAT, because they are now covered. The Chancellor made it very clear that he was moving to ease the impact on the churches, in recognition of the massive contribution made by congregations up and down the land to the life of their communities.

Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England. I welcome the Minister to his place and look forward to his comments.

Looking at the estimates for the forthcoming year, it appears that there will be a 2% increase in the overall budget against last year’s final position in the 2012-13 supplementary estimate. It appears that the £43 million increase in programme spend is largely due to the £124 million increase due to the transfer of the CAP disallowance funding from 2013-14 to 2014-15, in line with a Treasury agreement to allow flexibility in disallowance funding between years. There is also a £38.4 million increase to the Environment Agency’s flood management budget, which is extremely welcome and includes the £20 million announced in the 2014 Budget. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his response, reassured us that this is new money and that we are not being asked to make savings from, for example, the EA’s Yorkshire and Humber budget to transfer to other parts of the country. That leads to the question, since I understand that the National Audit Office is not in the position to provide figures for the debate, of what the projected figures for disallowance, and any quantifiable fines from the new CAP reform coming into effect next year, will be.

Against that backdrop, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was extremely pleased to consider the Department’s proposals. When we reported last year, we found much to like. We support the Government’s intention to raise the minimum level of claim threshold to five hectares, and to move money uphill. It is extremely important to state at the outset, however, that that money must go to active farmers and not simply to those who own the land. I would like to go into some detail in that regard, and the Minister cannot help but be aware of our particular concerns.

I would like to record my particular thanks to the previous Minister with responsibility for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was mindful of our concerns about areas where common land is prevalent. The Committee supports the Government’s position that England should adhere, as closely as possible, to the greening measures set out in the direct payments regulation, and not adopt a national certification scheme approach to greening. In our conclusions, we recommend that the Government maintain the 9% rate of transfer from pillar one to pillar two, and only move to 15% in 2017 if they can demonstrate that additional funds are required and that there is a clear benefit from the projects proposed. Clearly, a compromise of 12% is less than 15% and more than 9%. Perhaps the Minister will share the Government’s thinking in that regard, but we are pleased that the farming voice, and that of the Committee, was heard.

The Committee recommends that the Government take steps to ensure that those actively farming receive the direct payments and that those farmers who have responded to the call to diversify are not captured inadvertently on the “negative list” of business types ineligible for CAP funding under pillar one. We recommend that the Government update the commons registers and allow commoners associations to claim on behalf of all those who actively farm commons, so that the commons attract the share of pillar one money intended for them. I am aware of the position in North Yorkshire and Cumbria, and that the register will be updated from October. I believe that in County Durham and other parts the situation might be slightly different. My concern, which I am sure the Committee shares, is that the update to the register cannot take place before 1 January 2015, so a number of eligible claims will be excluded. What will happen to specific claims that are relevant and should be awarded, but may not be in place by 1 January 2015? It would be extremely helpful to put the minds of those farmers at rest.

The Committee supports the continuation of dual use under pillar two, but we think that Natural England must display a lot more rigour in arranging agri-environment contracts to ensure that payments under those schemes go to those who do the work and whose income is forgone. We make a specific recommendation that I hope will be echoed across the House this evening—that Natural England must be in a position to give advice. It should not be seen just as the policeman; it must be there to provide advice to farmers who seek it.

One of the central recommendations—it is certainly close to my heart, given the area that I represent—is that where there is a dispute between landowners, tenants and graziers, they must have access to a dispute resolution mechanism, set up along similar lines to that suggested by the tenancy reform industry group. In this day and age, it is worrying that those whose interests are sometimes ignored or trodden on should not have access to arbitration or a simple, swift dispute resolution mechanism along the lines we propose.

The Select Committee highlights the risks associated with the Government’s plans to develop a new single IT system for CAP funding through which all agencies would be able to administer the CAP. We do not wish to rehearse the grief from previous Administrations, but we are aware of recent history and we do not wish it to be repeated. An undertaking and some assurance from the Minister that that is not intended would be most welcome this evening.

We support the Government’s ambition to encourage and support as many people as possible to apply for CAP funding online, but that approach will simply not be available to some farmers. We received an assurance from a DEFRA Minister in our recent deliberations that a paper-based application process would be retained and that guidance will be provided in paper format in the run-up to the new scheme. It was thus of some concern when the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, in giving evidence to the Committee in April this year, told us that there is absolutely no way that a paper format application can be made. That will send shockwaves through rural areas.

In my own constituency, I had a briefing from NYnet, the county council’s regime that is working in tandem with BT to try to roll out broadband in the area. By 2015-16, however, only 78% of my Thirsk, Malton and Filey constituency will be covered. That means that 22% of Thirsk, Malton and Filey will have no access—I repeat, no access at all—to fast-speed broadband. That 22% is where all the farming communities live, and it means that they will be severely disadvantaged. We are all familiar with those trying to apply online who find either no access or receive internet access that is so slow that all the information that has been entered can be lost just as people are trying to press the send button.

I say to the Minister that it is no comfort to farmers to be told that they should seek a satellite connection, as they simply cannot afford the prohibitive cost. I repeat the Committee’s recommendation to the Government that the BT money that is being rolled out—particularly the element coming from the BBC licence fee and the next round of licensing—should go to those rural communities across England that have the slowest speed and the weakest broadband coverage. We cannot expect the farming community to go digital by default from 1 January, yet have no access to broadband.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I, too, am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the hon. Lady agree that throughout the UK and particularly in isolated rural areas, farmers are being marginalised because of lack of proper access to broadband, and that the Minister should use his good offices to make representations to BT about that problem? That issue was highlighted in our rural communities report. Does the hon. Lady further agree with me—on a compelling point that she made—that there is a need for proper guidance and form filling to be available in paper form?

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank the hon. Lady for her sterling contribution and excellent work on the Select Committee. I agree that this goes to the heart of how applications will be made from 1 January. We need clarification, because we cannot have the Minister saying one thing and the RPA saying another. If, as the RPA assured us, paper forms will not be available to submit, intensive tuition must be made available to those required to go digital from 1 January.

I want to raise one or two more points before putting some questions to the Minister. Another issue that the RPA shared with the Committee during the evidence session in April is that the reality will be less than was first hoped and more complex, even without the known unknowns such as the disallowance or fines. The cost to implement will, according to the RPA, be between 15% and 40% higher than previous schemes and, possibly, than previously thought. I shall ask the Minister a couple of direct questions about that.

The impact of flooding on farmland is another important issue that cannot be underestimated. Thousands of acres in Yorkshire and the Humber area were under water in 2012-13 and 2013-14, and thousands of acres were under water in Somerset and the south-western parts of Scotland at the time of flood incidents. The impact on the productivity of farming has been severe.

Will the Minister confirm whether farmers will be eligible for parts of the CAP, perhaps under pillar two, and the rural development fund, if not agri-monetary schemes, for storing water on land? How long would it take? Will such storage constitute reservoirs? When will DEFRA be in a position to publish the reservoir safety guidance, for which we have been waiting for some months, if not two years, because it will have a direct bearing on this matter?

Is it a source of disappointment to DEFRA that the CAP reforms have in many respects become more complex and less simple in an already complex system? Is it indeed the case that the CAP schemes are likely to be between 15% and 40% higher than previous schemes, and how has the Department budgeted for that in the estimates? Is the Department seeking to simplify and minimise the administrative cost in the new schemes, even against that backdrop?

Will the Minister respond to a question that has been asked by me and by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie)? In April, the RPA told our Committee:

“It is not actually possible to submit by paper to the new scheme, because of the way that it is structured.”

That completely contradicts what Ministers told us in their evidence. I repeat that farmers in areas with no broadband service face considerable problems. Will the Minister assure us that making access to CAP funding digital by default will not cause problems for farmers in areas that lack broadband coverage or significant speeds? Will he also assure us that the new digital support centres, which form an important part of the assisted digital service, will be accessible to all farmers, including hill farmers in relatively remote locations such as mine? Will he confirm that there will be a certain degree of privacy, and that farmers will not be expected to sit in a public place, such as a library, sharing commercially sensitive information with members of the public? The Committee believes that that would not be appropriate.

What makes the Minister think that the United Kingdom’s allocation of pillar two funds, which was much less than had been predicted, will not adversely affect the competitiveness of English farmers, especially in view of the fact that the Government now say that they will modulate 12% and that the proportion will increase to 15% if they believe that to be necessary? What will be the criteria for the move to a 15% rate of transfer from pillar one—direct payments—to support in the final two years of the pillar two rural development programmes? As I have said, we are pleased that the Government listened to the views of the farming community and those of the Committee before reaching their decision, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what those criteria will be.

In June, the Secretary of State unveiled the details of how the Department would implement the greening rules in England, and referred to a specific problem relating to hedges. He said that the need to validate all claims and map digitally every hedge to EU standards might significantly increase the risk of delayed payments to those who adopted that option. What progress has DEFRA made in talking to banks to ensure that farmers who receive late payments as a consequence of the inclusion of hedges in ecological focus areas will be treated sympathetically? What guidance will it give farmers in regard to how hedges should be measured? I am sure that the Minister will want to allay our concerns, and those of farmers who have contacted us, about any change in the date on which farm payments will be made. What effect will the inclusion of hedges as an option enabling farmers to comply with EFA requirements have on disallowance risk? Will the Minister tell us how the Department will forecast what that risk will be?

During the evidence session, when asked about the level of disallowance that the agency expected to incur under the new CAP, the chief executive of the RPA told the Committee

“we would be doing incredibly well if we can hold disallowance to 2% of future scheme expenditure”,

which is calculated to be in the order of £40 million. From that, it would be reasonable to infer that the UK’s disallowance risk will be increased. We are at a disadvantage this evening because we are debating the subject without the figures from the National Audit Office.

The proposal to move money uphill is obviously welcome, but, as I said earlier, we must ensure that it is those who are actively farming, particularly on common land, who will benefit. DEFRA announced in April that farmers in England who operate within the moorland line would receive approximately £26 more per hectare in direct payments under the new CAP, an increase of about 90% in the moorland rate. That is great news, and a victory for commons, given that 96% of upland commons are above the moorland line. I repeat, however, that we must ensure that the money goes to the commons and the graziers. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to our request for a dispute resolution mechanism. It would be great if he could also assure us that commoners and graziers who wish to claim payments under the new CAP schemes will not be disadvantaged by the poor state of the registers in North Yorkshire, Cumbria, County Durham or elsewhere.

The new environmental management schemes which are open to all upland farmers are obviously welcome, but I hope the Minister will assure us that those farmers will not be left worse off overall by the changes introduced under the new scheme if, as a result of the comprehensive area assessment, the new environmental land management schemes are not open to farmers who are currently operating the uplands entry level stewardship schemes.

I would like to end by highlighting how current payments have worked least well: in respect of rewarding active farmers and graziers on the common land. It is crucial that those who are actively involved in the commons—those active farmers and graziers, or at least those who perform an active part in managing the commons—receive payment timeously, whereas people who do nothing with the commons should not receive a payment where that is not appropriate. Therefore, I urge the Minister to agree that lessons must be learned from how the existing direct payment scheme—the single payment scheme—was implemented in relation to common land, and to ensure that those who till the land on our behalf are indeed the beneficiaries of the new proposals.

With those comments and questions, we await with great interest the Minister’s response.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), on producing a very pertinent report.

On previous occasions I have found the Minister to be a very reasonable, intelligent and empathetic person, and I hope those qualities are going to be on display at the Dispatch Box tonight. I was slightly disappointed when I initiated a debate about the hill farmers in Teesdale that he was not able to respond, but I am going to put the points again in the hope of getting a slightly more sympathetic response than I received previously.

In my constituency, there are a large number of hill farmers who are very much affected by these CAP changes. It is an unusual area, because they are almost entirely tenant farmers farming on common land. They have been farming in the same way for about 500 years, and they have produced a very special way of life and a very special and valuable ecology, so I applaud the remarks in the report and from the Select Committee Chair on common land.

When I went to see the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services, it was particularly concerned because it felt that the European Union had not understood the way commons operate in this country and that the rules at European level were not very sensitive to the needs of English hill farmers for that reason. There was also concern about the change in the payment times in the underlying reforms: payments had previously been made on a six-monthly cycle but people were going to have to wait much longer—sometimes 18 months and in one case as long as nine years. That is a significant problem.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and it allows me to refer to the register, which is out of date. My brother and I have shared a farm in Teesdale, of which the hon. Lady is aware. Does she realise that Teesdale is often cited as the area whose farmers earn the lowest income of any hill farmers in England and Wales?

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Lady is right. Newcastle university estimates that the average income of a farmer in my constituency is £11,000 a year. Many of them are on working tax credits—or were on them under the previous Government, but I am not sure how many of them are still getting the working tax credits.

The Select Committee report is excellent on the major problem such hill farmers face, which is to do with delivery: the totally inadequate service that the farmers receive from the Rural Payments Agency because of the requirement to apply for money online and because the system is constantly collapsing. The Select Committee report states at paragraph 34 that

“farmers can be heavily penalised for a genuine mistake but not appropriately compensated when it is the Rural Payments Agency who is in error.”

What has happened repeatedly in recent months is that the farmers have gone to upload their data and information, and the RPA computer system has been down, necessitating the farmers to go home and come back another day. That is absolutely absurd. Sometimes they have a round trip of 20 miles to access the computer in the UTASS centre in Middleton in Teesdale. When the system is down, they have wasted several hours and have to go back another day in the vain hope it will be up again. I wrote to the Minister about this, and I really think he should not be penalising the farmers when the RPA is at fault.

The next extremely pertinent recommendation from the Select Committee is recommendation 36, which states:

“The IT system remains, however, one of the standout challenges of this round…Given the lessons of the past we question whether this is the right time to be introducing a new IT system.”

How very right the Committee is. It is not just about a new IT system, with all the risks, complexities and problems that a new system always seems to entail in this country; one of my local farmers calculated that because DEFRA’s systems are so complex, and because he has to apply to so many different things and for each system he is meant to have a different authentication, he is supposed to remember 27 different personal identification numbers. This is absurd. This is grotesque. This is Kafkaesque. I find it difficult to remember my bank number and the number to get into the House of Commons, so how can these farmers, whose real job is farming up on the hill, be expected also to run the sort of complex IT system that would make a banker blench?

The Select Committee’s next point, which is absolutely right, was about the importance of encouraging and supporting people to apply online but realising that

“there will be some for whom such an approach is not appropriate. A paper-based application process must be retained”.

That is absolutely essential. Once upon a time, the farmers got the forms through the post, sat at their kitchen table, had a cup of tea, filled the forms out, put the stamp on the envelope, shoved it in the post box and, boom, the whole thing was done. Now that is not possible and the farmers have to drive to the library or the UTASS centre to get help with the uploading.

The whole thing is completely inefficient because, as recommendation 38 indicates, the rural broadband programme has not succeeded so far. We know that 5 million people in this country do not have access to broadband. Until 100% of people have access to broadband, how can it make sense to have a totally online approach and not have a paper-based approach alongside it? In my constituency, 40% of the farmers have no access to rural broadband, so DEFRA and the RPA are taking an absurd approach. It is essential to maintain a paper-based system. It is not reasonable for the Government to make public spending cuts through a digital-by-default process and pass all the burden back to the farmers for delivering the Government’s own administration system. The farmers experience that as oppressive and nerve wracking; it raises anxiety levels to a completely unreasonable pitch, given the significance of what the Government have to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

There were serious administrative difficulties in terms of allowing hedgerows and all landscape features to count towards the environmental focus area, because each one has to be mapped, and we took the decision in the end that hedgerows were so important to many parts of the country that in the first year we should include those hedgerows and endeavour to get the mapping done, and where it could not be done in year one—we have three years to complete the mapping— farmers would self-declare the hedgerows. We do not rule out adding things like stone walls in years two or three, once we have got hedgerows in place. The task of mapping every single individual feature on every farm is an enormous one, however, and we therefore wanted to start first with hedges, before moving on to things such as dry stone walls.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to try to make progress, I am afraid, and I will address many of the points my hon. Friend made if I have time to get to them.

On the agri-environment schemes, we have been clear that 87% of the pillar two budget will go on the new environmental land management scheme. At the higher end, the scheme will be broadly similar to the existing higher level stewardship scheme, but we will also have an additional rate that has more requirements and obligations than the existing entry level stewardship scheme, and which is more proactive and is almost a middle rate. These will be more targeted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire raised concerns that this would effectively lead to white areas or deserts where there would be no such support. Alongside this scheme we intend to deal with the problem of so-called white areas by ensuring that there will be directed options right around the country so that whole areas of the country will not be excluded, and grants to support the planting of woodland, for instance, will be universally available.

Many Members touched on matters relating to the three-crop rule, which will cause difficulty for some farmers—up to around 7%, possibly more. We gave serious consideration to advancing what is called a national certification scheme—a nationally designed scheme that would achieve the same thing—because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said, the three-crop rule does not in itself guarantee crop rotation. Indeed, there are all sorts of anomalies, not least that a cabbage and a cauliflower are regarded as the same crop botanically as far as the EU is concerned, and there will be lots of similar complications to work through. When we looked at the alternatives, however, we found that they were all more complicated and even more difficult to administer than what was already on the table.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the uplift to the single farm payment, which is important. It recognises the value we place on upland and moorland farmers, not just as custodians of the countryside, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned, but as food producers. We are, therefore, equalising the basic payment for upland farmers and lowland farmers, and we will almost double the rate for moorland farmers to about €70 per hectare.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a number of issues, the first of which related to commons. We understand the concerns about the commons register, which has always been the starting point for the mapping of commons. There are disallowance risks in departing too far from the system we have had in place to date, but I can confirm that in addition to starting with that existing commons register, the RPA will utilise other information available to it, such as aerial photography, to help ensure that those who are entitled to claim on common land can.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the issue of disallowance, and I can confirm that we have set aside a figure of 2% to plan for that. It is our aspiration to get to zero disallowance, but the way in which the disallowance scheme works is incredibly complicated and convoluted. Frequently, the disallowance we get is through no fault of our own; it is often because the European Commission does not understand its own rules, and we can get into very protracted arguments. For instance, the fruit and veg scheme has been notorious as a cause of disallowance. The system is very complicated and I do not think we will ever be able to eliminate disallowance altogether.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, have highlighted the issue of the modulation rate—the inter-pillar transfer. We have made it clear that we will modulate at 12% initially and have a review in 2016. She asked what the criteria for that will be. There are two basic criteria, the first of which is whether there is sufficient demand for those agri-environment schemes to warrant an increase in that budget. That links to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). The second is an assessment of the impact on the competitiveness of British agriculture.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), have raised concerns about the new IT system. The existing RPA computer system is simply not fit for purpose and we need a new system. The new common agricultural policy is far more complicated, and there are coefficients attached to some environmental focus areas. Somebody growing peas or beans will find that that counts for only 0.7% towards their EFA—0.7% of the area declared—whereas for hedges there is a coefficient of up to 10 times the area of the hedge. The idea that we could do this by drawing things on maps with pencil, as we do under the existing system, and sending that in to the RPA is simply not credible. We therefore believe that to cope with the new system we have to have a digital by default approach and to have everyone adding their data by computer, because that will be simpler.

I completely understand the point that many hon. Members have made about broadband access. We are investing £500 million through BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—and a further £250 million in phase 2. We have a third fund of £10 million to pilot creative ideas for those really hard-to-reach areas. In addition, we will have an assisted digital package. We will send paper guidance to every farmer in year 1, so although they will not have a paper application form, they will have paper guidance. That guidance will include detailed information on our digital offer. The crucial thing for those lacking the computer literacy to complete their form online or those who have no broadband access is that we will be setting up a number of digital service centres right around the country, particularly targeted at those areas where there is a problem. Farmers will, thus, be able physically to take their information into an office, which will have privacy and be discreet, and work with an RPA agent to enter that information on the system. That is the right thing for everyone. It is right for those farmers, because it removes the risk of them getting penalties and disallowance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I very much join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, who only a few months ago came to see me to promote the British apple industry and was still playing a most constructive part. I also pay tribute to the role the right hon. Gentleman played when he was the senior Minister in charge at the end of the MacSharry period, when some serious reforms, from which we are currently benefiting, were pushed through. It is disappointing that that trajectory has not been continued. It is absolutely our intention to report to the Commission on time, on 1 August. I made a written statement earlier this week and I made further announcements on greening at the cereals conference yesterday.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, a former constituent and a very good friend to the farming industry. Mindful of my historic interest in this field, which is on the register, does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that the Commons Act 2006 register is woefully inaccurate and out of date, which means that those eligible for claims will be unable to make them, and that we will not have the paperless claims the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was promised when taking evidence?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. She is right to raise some of the technical issues that have been thrown up. It is very much our intention that the reform should be introduced in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for applicants to understand, and as easy as possible for the Rural Payments Agency to pay out, and we are pleased to see a significant number of applications by the digital method.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady is correct: this is quite a challenge, but I think one needs to recognise that several pots of money are available. There is the very welcome £20 million the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently awarded to cathedrals to keep for immediate repairs; the Heritage Lottery Fund has put aside £25 million a year for necessary repairs; the listed places of worship scheme totals £42 million a year; and of course we have to be grateful to the wider public, who raise approximately £115 million each year to spend on repairs to their parish church buildings. The hon. Lady is a Front-Bench spokesperson for her party on culture, media and sport, and I am always willing to discuss with her other ways in which she thinks further funds can be found.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Thousands of small parish churches are in desperate need of urgent repairs to heating, lighting and electrical systems, as well as roof repairs. How much or what proportion of the amounts that my right hon. Friend just mentioned relate to VAT due on those repairs?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend may recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made very generous provision of, if I recall correctly, £25 million to help to offset VAT costs on church repairs, so there is no reason why churches should be deterred from carrying out repairs and restoration by concerns about VAT bills.

Water Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Minister for his kind comments?

As it is some time since the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, I want briefly to refresh the memories of Members on it. It includes many important reforms that attempt to build on three important reviews taken forward by the previous Government: the Pitt review on flooding, the Walker review on affordability, and the Cave review on competition.

Throughout the Bill’s long passage through Parliament the Opposition have been supportive. In the Commons we voted for it on Second Reading and on Third Reading. In the other place, although we raised legitimate concerns and challenged the Government, again we remained broadly supportive of the Bill. We have backed measures to increase competition. We have supported measures that will provide a statutory basis for agreement on flood reinsurance, providing affordable insurance to households who would have otherwise not been covered. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) pointed out on Third Reading, there still remains even now a major hole at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of the Government’s water policy: the absence of any serious attempt to tackle the impact of rising water bills on household budgets, which is adding to the cost of living crisis.

Unfortunately, the Government have failed to back a new national affordability scheme that would have ended the current postcode lottery in which companies choose whether to offer a social tariff and set the criteria for eligibility. Last year the industry made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, of which they returned £1.8 billion to shareholders, yet fewer than 25,000 people are eligible to benefit from social tariffs offered by just three water companies. In many ways, therefore, the Bill represents a missed opportunity and remains seriously flawed, despite its being improved by amendments made in the other place.

Although we will not vote against any of the first group of amendments, that does not mean that we believe that the Bill could not have been made stronger and more effective through the adoption of our amendments. We are where we are, as they say. While, as the Minister pointed out, most amendments in the group present a series of technical and drafting changes, amendments 32 and 33, amendments 49 to 52 and amendments 53 to 64 make significant changes to the Bill that was debated in the Commons.

Amendments 32 and 33, which were originally introduced in Committee by Lord Grantchester, give a new role to the Consumer Council for Water. They will require Ofwat to issue rules that will mean that the CCW must be consulted by water and sewerage undertakers on all charges schemes. That will allow the CCW to play a role at an early stage in the charges process and will enable it to flag up problems, before the relevant bills start arriving on customers’ doorsteps and further problems occur. For example, as Lord Grantchester pointed out in Committee, the CCW had previously challenged the charging plans of some companies that restricted half-yearly payment options for those on direct debit payments. Some customers prefer to pay on a half-yearly basis, as it better enables them to manage their money.

Although we welcome the amendments, which we promoted in the other place, it is a pity that the Government have not gone further by accepting our argument that we need to tackle the impact of rising water bills on household budgets. As I said, the Government could have backed our plans for a new national affordability scheme that would have ended the current postcode lottery in which companies choose whether or not to offer a social tariff, with no minimum standards in place to ensure fair and effective affordability measures.

Amendments 49 and 50 introduce parliamentary scrutiny for any regulations that the Secretary of State may deem fit to introduce under clauses 37 and 39. The amendments, which were introduced at a very late stage—I think on Third Reading in the Lords—mean that the affirmative procedure will now apply on the first exercise of those powers. That is quite right, especially given the importance of the regulations in question. It is a pity, however, that the Government have been forced into this position and have had to be pushed into introducing the amendments by Labour Members and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. That Committee made firm recommendations in this regard, and has rightly argued that the Secretary of State would have enjoyed so-called Henry VIII powers over many parts of the Act if the Bill had remained unamended, so Parliament is right to assert its right to scrutinise the relevant regulations as and when they see the light of day.

Amendments 53 to 64 deal with retail exit. I want to put it on the record that we have also backed measures in the Bill that increase competition to support businesses that wish to enter the retail market for non-domestic consumers. The measures are similar to those that have been a success north of the border; Scotland became the first country in the world to introduce competition to the non-domestic water market in 2008. We find it odd, however, that the Government have repeatedly dragged their feet in relation to allowing such businesses to exit this market. Without our persistence, which was shared by peers on the Government Benches, the Government’s original proposals would not create a market at all.

Retail exit enjoys a great deal of support, including from Ofwat, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and some of the major water companies. Indeed, in Committee, amendments introduced by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), were not supported by the Government. In the other place, Lord Whitty commented that there was bemusement in all parts of the House as to why the Government were so resistant to the concept of exit in the new retail market, and introduced an amendment that would have allowed it. His arguments were not, however, supported by the Government, who gave the lame reason that such a measure would cause investor insecurity. On Report, Lord Moynihan introduced an amendment that would have gained our support, but he withdrew it on advice that the Government would introduce an amendment on Third Reading. Although we welcome the Government’s late conversion, we have to wonder why they resisted such a measure during most of the Bill’s progress through this House and the other place. Surely it would have been more appropriate if the amendments had been brought forward earlier, to allow adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Once again, however, we are where we are.

It is also right that, when and if regulations are brought forward by the Secretary of State, they will be laid before both Houses under the super-affirmative procedure. I pay tribute again to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in highlighting the need for that even at the 11th hour of the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

First, I welcome the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to her new position, and pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I understand that they have performed a job swap. The hon. Gentleman has made a big contribution to this debate and, in the past, to the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I can only apologise to both Front-Bench teams that there are not more colleagues from the Committee here today. The reason for that is that we are undertaking a farm visit this afternoon. I had to give my excuses and will be joining colleagues later for the completion of the visit today and tomorrow. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and welcome both the outbreak of common sense in the other place and in the Department and a very welcome and worthwhile amendment.

I shall briefly go over the deliberations in the Select Committee and the earlier proceedings in this place. In our report on the draft Water Bill, the Committee strongly recommended that the Bill should include provisions to enable incumbent companies to exit the retail market voluntarily. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned, the Committee tabled a new clause in my name on Report to provide for retail exit. Also, during the course of the inquiry both regulators—Ofwat and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—the incumbent companies and new entrants were united in calling for the Bill to include an exit route. WICS provided a welcome and helpful explanatory note, and I hope the amendment it proposed during the Commons stages of the Bill will bear fruit today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

First, may I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Primarolo? I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for their contributions today, and the latter for the contribution she has made as Chair of the Select Committee, both throughout this process and long before any Bill was formally considered in both Houses.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised a number of issues and returned to the issue of affordability. The Government have made it clear that the best thing we can do on affordability is keep bills low for everybody by having a robust regulator and setting out to that regulator the policy framework to which we aspire in order for things to happen. The regulator has taken good action to explore with companies what they can do to keep bills lower; that is the trend we are seeing into the next price review period, with some companies bringing it forward into the current period as well, to the benefit of all consumers. Of course, this Government took action to deal with the acute situation in the south-west, where bills were much higher than everywhere else in the country. The hon. Lady rightly points out the contribution that social tariffs can make and the fact that three companies have introduced them. Other companies are bringing them forward in the next year or so, following consultation with their customer base. It is important that that consultation takes place, because introducing social tariffs involves a funding mechanism.

The Opposition have talked of a national scheme, but they did not introduce one when they were in government. We can continue to debate that, but my concerns with such a scheme, and those of the Government, are that the situation in each water company area is different. Therefore, one scheme mandated across the whole area will have different impacts on different customer groups across those water company areas and may have perverse impacts on the bills of some, given the different demographics and mix of bill payers. We are not convinced of that approach, but I welcome the Opposition’s support for social tariffs where they have been introduced.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, as did the Chair of the Select Committee. We have listened to concerns and examined the use of the affirmative procedure where necessary. When we get into the realms of the super-affirmative procedure I bow to those with more experience of the range of options at the House’s disposal and how such a procedure might be used. We feel that the affirmative procedure is the correct one to take things forward, but we very much welcome the work done by the relevant Committee in another place to make suggestions on how to ensure that Members of both Houses, and those observing our deliberations externally, will have confidence that we have got things right.

I spoke earlier about the position on retail exits, but there are a couple of further things to say in response to the two speeches we have just heard. First, the Government’s position has never been that such exits should never happen and that we would never make proposals for them. We said at earlier stages that we had concerns, given the range of opinions held across the industry. Both regulators have supported such provisions throughout, whereas the Consumer Council for Water had a much more nuanced position. Some companies were very concerned about it, as were some investors, particularly with regard to pressure for the forced separation of companies. We know that investors would be concerned about that, and we want to see continuing investment in improving resilience, which is a key feature of where we are going with our programme. We are very concerned about the position of household customers, who will not have the options under this Bill that non-household customers have.

With that in mind, we have introduced amendments that take heed of arguments made by Opposition and Government Members, as well as people outside the House, and which put in place safeguards that make sure that all customers are protected throughout any process of change. There will be further consultation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said, which is crucial, and the question of forced separation, for example, can be addressed. On that basis, the amendments introduced by the Government allow us to move forward on the potential for retail exit in a measured way. That is the difference between the earlier debates on the Bill and where we are now. I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for her contribution, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Committee for the work that they have done.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, but would he clarify the enhanced affirmative procedure?

[Dan Rogerson]

When the House considers options on the enhanced affirmative procedure there is a range of processes that can be used, but we believe that the affirmative procedure is the correct one with regard to most of the changes that we have discussed this afternoon. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the discussion on this group of amendments. I hope that the House approves the amendments and that we can agree the changes made in another place.

Lords amendment 15 agreed to.

Lords amendments 16 to 30, 32, 33, 43 to 64, 101 to 103, 107 to 147 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 142.

Clause 8

Bulk supply of water by water undertakers

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for introducing the second group of amendments, which relate to some very important provisions in the Bill.

Lords amendments 1 to 14 are largely drafting amendments, but they include some important additions to the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 detail the efficient use of water resources and take into account the effect on the environment of water use, with particular reference to what constitutes a bulk supply agreement with water undertakers, and the effect of such agreements on the environment. Lords amendments 1 to 14 and Lords amendment 31 give a greater role, as the Minister acknowledged, to the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales with regard to the effects on the environment of bulk supply agreements. We welcome the strengthening of the role of these two bodies to provide environmental expertise and to prevent bulk supply agreements from damaging the environment.

Amendments 34 to 42 relate to social and environmental safeguards more generally, and amendment 38 in particular requires that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers “must” have regard to social and environmental matters when compiling their statements to Ofwat, thereby strengthening the requirement in the Bill. The change from “may” to “must” have regard is a major concession by the Government. Given the importance of securing environmental safeguards at the heart of all aspects of water management, one can say only that it is surprising that the Government did not make that amendment of their own volition, rather than as a result of facing pressure from Members of both Houses on the point.

It is important to put on the record our deep disappointment that the Government have not gone further and recognised the need to make the Bill stronger and more effective by making sustainable development a primary duty for the regulator, as is the case with other regulators. We believe that resilience and the associated term that the Government use here—“the efficient use of water”—are not good enough. In the water White Paper, the Government said that they would carefully consider the case for that, and many environmental organisations are concerned that Ofwat does not have the necessary powers to prevent environmental damage and damaging water exploitation. That is particularly important in the light of greater competition, where companies will be looking to maximise efficiency however they can. Without a tough regulatory duty, that could come at the expense of the environment. My question to the Minister about the Government’s failure to grasp the opportunity presented by the Bill to strengthen regulation in this regard is this: why have they failed to respond to this vital issue in a robust manner and safeguard our environment?

On water abstraction, the Government’s White Paper, “Water for Life”, published in 2011, set out the case for a comprehensive reform of abstraction licences, suggesting that the current licensing system was outdated and in need of urgent reform to deal with increasing pressure on water resources—an issue with which we are all now familiar. Pressures develop because of population change and climate change. The Government tabled an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report on abstraction reform within five years. That is in the context, however, of the Government’s decision to allow the introduction of greater competition in the upstream market to take effect before reform of the abstraction regime.

We, along with leading environmental experts, are concerned that without comprehensive abstraction reform, upstream competition could incentivise existing abstraction licence holders to sell their water to water companies, even when the catchment is already over-abstracted or over-licensed. In response, the Government have said that the Environment Agency is adequately placed to review and/or change abstraction licences. We do not agree with that assessment.

In his response to their lordships’ amendments, Lord De Mauley said:

“The Environment Agency will soon use its powers to revoke or vary abstraction licences without compensation where they are causing serious damage to the environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 163.]

However, following budget cuts, the Environment Agency has cut 600 staff since 2010, so surely the Minister must concede that the Environment Agency will now have less capacity effectively to discharge its duties in that respect. What will be the priority for this smaller, rather emaciated, Environment Agency—flood defence schemes or attention to abstraction reform? Given its much reduced resource, is the Minister confident that the Environment Agency can manage all its duties effectively?

Under the new market conditions created by the upstream market reforms in the Bill, more water could be abstracted from water courses than is sustainable or suitable for local ecosystems. We support the amendment for upstream market reforms to allow new water undertakers into the market, but we still think it wise for the Government to deliver progress on abstraction reform, running concurrently.

We asked the Government to bring forward reformed abstraction licences on the same day as the upstream reform measures in the Water Bill come into effect, but they have unfortunately neglected to do so. Instead, under amendments 65 and 104, the Secretary of State is required to produce a report on progress made on water abstraction reform within five years of the Bill being passed, as the Minister indicated. We do not oppose that amendment because it is better than nothing, but it is unsatisfactory overall, because unsustainable water abstraction could continue for some time after the Bill has been passed—before DEFRA effectively addresses the issue.

In conclusion, why are the Government reluctant to commit to ensuring that the abstraction reforms run concurrently with the upstream marketing reforms? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer on that point.

[Miss McIntosh]

I shall make just a few comments. Over the last three years, events in Yorkshire have certainly shown the unpredictability of the weather, which can swing from a real flood to a virtual drought within a matter of weeks. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), whom I see in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, and my hon. Friend the Minister sat in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when we debated these issues—both at the pre-scrutiny stage and when the amendments to the Bill were tabled. It was a constant theme of the Select Committee to call for the implementation of abstraction reform—certainly by 2022. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that this will happen within five years of the Act being passed, whereas we asked for it within seven years. It looks as if we are on course.

Personally, I would have made the case to include abstraction reform within the context of the Bill. I hope this does not come home to roost in the intervening five, six or seven-year period, but given the climatic changes and swings in weather patterns that we have seen, I hope we do not rue the day that we failed to include abstraction reform in the Bill. I understand that there was no appetite for it and that the Department felt, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, that doing so would have brought an inevitable delay to the Bill.

The reason abstraction reform should be included, and the reason I welcome this group of Lords amendments, is that the current system of managing abstraction of water from rivers and aquifers was introduced in the 1960s and is woefully out of date. It does not effectively address the severity of pressures on water resources due to increasing demands from a growing population and an increasingly varied climate. The Environment Agency has mentioned that in a number of areas, including my own, it cannot, for understandable reasons, afford the upkeep of existing flood defence banks. Farm land in those areas will be prone to future floods.

Water from rivers and aquifers has many uses, and there is a fine balance between industrial and non-industrial use. I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which I had the privilege of representing as an MEP for 10 years, to see the difficulties that many industrial users such as jam manufacturers and others experienced in a climate that they were not used to. Essex has on occasions been compared to Egypt in respect of the amount of water fall that it receives. The weakness in the current system means that it could start to constrain economic growth, reduce the resilience of the water supply and lead to environmental damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

As the Minister has explained, this group of amendments relate, to the provisions in the Bill on flood reinsurance. Again, we will support the amendments, which we believe have materialised primarily because of pressure from a wide range of Members in the other place and from the official Opposition. However, we believe that more could have been done.

In many ways, this is yet another example of a missed opportunity to produce effective and robust legislation. We support the Flood Re scheme and believe that it is important that affordable cover is made available for those who are struggling and are at greatest risk from future floods. It is also important that the policy should be underpinned by the principle of minimal impact on wider bill payers, so it is important that the levy agreed between the Government and the industry remains equivalent to about £10.50 for each UK household with both buildings and contents insurance in place.

We also welcome the fact that Flood Re is designed to be progressive, with the benefits targeted on lower income households, but we are disappointed that the Government could not support Labour’s amendment in the other place, which would have at least enabled parliamentarians to shine a light on the potential problems created by the arrangements for leasehold and tenanted properties. As Lord Whitty pointed out, there are complicated qualifying or excluding conditions surrounding the ownership and occupation rules under the scheme.

The rules could also have an impact on the private rented market, as there is a fear that single property landlords, for instance, might find that their exclusion from the scheme means that the cost of insurance eats away at their capacity to invest in their properties. As Lord Whitty pointed out, the consequence could be increasing levels of dilapidated housing stock with potential impacts at a neighbourhood level. The only option that might be open to the landlord to raise funds for improvements could be to raise rents or the service charge, so tenants might suffer indirectly as a consequence of being excluded from the Flood Re scheme. The risk is clear: the number of new landlords prepared to invest and buy property will diminish in the areas that are affected. Given the housing crisis facing the country, that is not a welcome prospect.

Although we recognise that the actuarial calculations for Flood Re are delicate and depend on various assumptions, we feel it is important that Parliament understand, the position. Labour’s amendment would address that by ensuring that a report was made available so that Parliament could see for itself the consequences of including or excluding different combinations of property before taking the Flood Re scheme forward via statutory instrument.

We also feel that the Government have failed to grasp the importance of using reliable scientific evidence on the potential impact of climate change when making estimates of the current and projected number of properties eligible for inclusion in the Flood Re scheme. That is perhaps not surprising, given that the Secretary of State has been known before now to deny the reality of climate change, but the threat, as most of us agree, is real and we need to be sure that the scheme will operate effectively within its 25-year span and will be adaptable to weather conditions resulting from climate change. If they are to adapt effectively, it is crucial that households can access information that identifies current and projected estimates of the number of people eligible for the scheme.

It is entirely sensible that we should seek the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to inform as accurately as possible our calculations on the challenges that the Flood Re scheme will face over time. Only then can households truly take the necessary action to minimise risk. The Government have tabled amendments providing information on transitioning from Flood Re to risk-reflective pricing, which Labour has been arguing for throughout the passage of the Bill.

Flood Re cannot operate on a static basis. It needs to respond to changing weather patterns, and we continue to believe that the Secretary of State should take advice from a credible expert source. Lord Krebs, chair of the adaptation sub-committee, has indicated that he would be willing to take on that role. However, our amendments, along with others on access to the national database and the right to appeal, were not accepted by the Government. We think that is short-sighted, but we support the amendments in this group and will continue to engage positively on this important issue.

[Miss McIntosh]

When we took evidence on the insurance aspects of the Bill during the Select Committee’s scrutiny stages, we were told that the package on Flood Re stood as a whole and that we could not consider any exceptions—not small businesses or leaseholders, or anything else, and certainly not band H. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will permit me a wry smile as I see that some of those exceptions have been included.

I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify the position on leaseholders. I—like many others, I am sure—have been contacted by constituents asking me to consider the implications for an owner who buys a leasehold property, as my constituents did in their block of flats. Apparently, the cost under Flood Re of the flood insurance alone will run to thousands of pounds, which they cannot afford and which they believe will affect their ability to resell those properties. I would be grateful for an explanation of where we are on that.

I understand that my noble Friend Lord de Mauley confirmed in the other place that domestic contents policies will be available to all under Flood Re, regardless of whether the properties are leasehold or freehold, rented or owned-occupied, except for properties in band H and those built since 1 January 2009. I have seen on many of my flood visits around the country that tenants on low incomes are often the first not to take out an insurance policy for their contents. The cost is therefore greater when they have to replace many of their possessions, some of which are of course priceless and cannot be replaced. Will domestic contents policies indeed be available to all?

Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm the intention behind the exception for band H properties? It seems bizarre. We are going to exclude from Flood Re leaseholders who are perhaps on lower incomes and often in smaller, more affordable properties, but people in band H tend to be wealthier and in a better position to afford insurance. I want to understand the situation so I can explain to my constituents why these exceptions have been considered.

I know that the date of 1 January 2009 was taken as the benchmark, but did the Department ever look closely at why that was a good date to choose? With hindsight, should it perhaps have been 1 January 2012 or 1 January 2013, when we first began closely to scrutinise these issues through the proposals from the Department and the work of the Select Committee and others in this place?

It would also be helpful to understand the position for small businesses, particularly farms. If the farmhouse itself has been flooded, will that be covered in the provisions of Flood Re?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, across a broad range of issues, and welcome their questions.

All three Members who spoke mentioned leaseholders. Let me put on record again the point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). All contents policies would be eligible for Flood Re, whether leasehold, freehold, rented or owner-occupied, provided that the properties were built before 1 January 2009 and are in council tax bands A to G. Leasehold houses will also be within the scope of Flood Re in terms of buildings insurance, provided that the leaseholder lives in the property and purchased the buildings insurance in their own name. Flats will be eligible provided that there are no more than three flats in the building and that the freeholder, or one of those with a share of the freehold, lives in the building and takes out the cover.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend says that the scheme applies if there are no more than three flats in the building. Where we lived—the current residents now have the problem—there could be 12, 16 or 20 properties. These are small properties that tend to be more affordable and occupied by those with a mortgage. Residents have put it to me that the increases are unaffordable already. Insurance companies are extracting those increases from them when they renew their insurance policies in an area that they know has already been flooded at ground-floor level because of the properties’ proximity to the river. I urge the Government to revisit this, because it is not acceptable. I do not want to pander to the Opposition’s argument about the standard cost of living, because that would be inappropriate, but I do believe that the Government should make the insurance affordable by reducing the cost. They should take out the below-three number because they have to reflect what working families are living in.

[Dan Rogerson]

We believe that a significant proportion of the leasehold sector will fall within the scope of Flood Re if the properties are at the highest levels of flood risk. I should emphasise, however, that we expect that most properties will not need to be in Flood Re and will find better prices through normal routes. We have been assured that there is no evidence of a systemic problem with freeholders being unable to obtain insurance for their leasehold properties. Specifically, feedback from members of the Association of British Insurers, representing over 60% of the market, including specialist commercial property insurers, showed no expectation of a widespread issue in an open market. As for the small businesses that are outside the scope of Flood Re, we and the ABI will monitor the market over time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

Will my hon. Friend hark back to the evidence the Select Committee heard from the insurance industry during pre-legislative scrutiny? We were told categorically that, if there is a one-in-200-year event, the pot into which the subsidy will be paid, on which we all agree, will not be sufficient to pay out the resources, and it is generally accepted by the insurance industry that the Government will step in. Perhaps that is a different phrase from the one that my hon. Friend might use, but it means that the buck stops with the Government.

[Dan Rogerson]

We have been absolutely clear that, in such an event, the resources from the Flood Re pot would be significant and the Government would be involved in discussions about how that money would be used to help the people affected.

Although we have been focusing on Flood Re, my hon. Friend also asked about de-averaging. I want to use this opportunity to put on the record the fact that the Government’s charging principles on de-averaging are unambiguous. Ofwat must not allow de-averaging that is harmful to customers, particularly rural customers. Our charging guidance will follow soon. I am happy to commit, as I have before, to making it plain in that document that there must be strong, definitive boundaries for the scope of any de-averaging and that households in particular must be protected.

We should not, however, be over-simplistic. There is no doubt that there are areas where better cost reflectivity could have substantial benefits for the environment and the resilience of our water supplies. It must be right that the new upstream markets should reflect the environmental costs of supply and that there are economic incentives for business users that use large volumes of water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole asked about the operation of current Government grant schemes. It might not be appropriate to go into that in detail now, but I would be happy to respond to correspondence from him on the specifics of how the scheme in his area is working.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to our debates on the Bill today and at various other stages in this and another place. I hope that the House will agree with their lordships’ amendments.

Lords amendment 67 agreed to.

Lords amendments 68 to 100 and 105 and 106 agreed to.

Immigration Bill (Money) (No. 2)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a statutory body or recognised charitable organisation.—(James Brokenshire.)

Immigration Bill (Programme) (No. 2.)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Immigration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22 October 2013 (Immigration Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Bovine TB

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The position is very simple. The pilots were set up last year. The hon. Lady asked about the roll-out of our programme. We made clear that we would learn lessons: the IEP report contained some very helpful advice, and we will adopt it. We are acting responsibly by maintaining the two existing cull areas. The hon. Lady mentioned the risk of increasing disease. My chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, has stated emphatically that ending culling in the two existing areas would greatly increase the risk of the disease, and his very strong scientific advice is that it should continue.

As for Wales, I am delighted that there has been a reduction in the disease there. According to the farmers in Wales to whom I have spoken, it may be due to the spike that occurred when annual testing was introduced recently. Given that the vaccination trial has only been taking place for two years in 1.5% of the land in Wales, to attribute it to vaccination is laughable.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of humaneness. The IEP report shows that 68 out of 69 badgers died virtually instantly. However, there are clear lessons to be learned on how we can improve humaneness, which we are happy to adopt.

The hon. Lady mentioned the number culled last year. I remind her that during the first year of the randomised badger culling trial that took place under the Government she supported, only 32%, 37% and 39% respectively were culled in three of the trial areas, but in those areas the culls did contribute to disease reduction later on.

The hon. Lady also mentioned cost. We are heading for a bill of £1 billion. We simply must address the disease in cattle and in wildlife, as has happened in every other country to which I referred in my statement. [Interruption.] I have already touched on the subject of Wales and vaccination, but I repeat for the benefit of Opposition Front Benchers who are chuntering from a sedentary position that it is not credible to attribute the reduction in Wales to a two-year vaccination programme that took place in 1.5% of the geographical area of Wales.

The hon. Lady came up with a few ideas, and I am delighted to say that we are in agreement on all of them. On badger vaccination, I have announced that we want to establish a buffer zone at the edges of the worst affected areas, because treating healthy badgers with the current badger vaccine—however difficult it is to deploy, given that a third of badgers are trap-shy—may help to build up a buffer zone, and that is worth doing. Sadly, injecting diseased badgers in the hot-spot areas with cattle vaccine will not reduce the incidence of the disease. I think that we agree on that.

The hon. Lady mentioned risk-based trading in connection with for cattle measures. We have already introduced that. I was very clear about this in my statement. If she looks at the strategy, she will see there are considerable new measures there, which are much stricter on cattle risk-based trading. It would be good if the hon. Lady went through our response to the independent panel so she sees that we are adopting its proposals, and went through our strategy, which shows that we are looking to bring in a whole range of tools. She should not just focus on culling of diseased badgers, although that is an important part, as we are bringing in a whole range of other measures, and down the road, as I made clear in the statement, I really do want to get to the position where we are leading the world on developing a cattle vaccine and where, above all, we can get better diagnostic techniques—possibly DNA systems—which can diagnose disease in cattle and in badgers.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the strategy and the fact that the Government are going to implement the panel recommendations. The public will be very alarmed that TB is now spreading through pets, and I hope the Secretary of State can address that. I urge him to give the House an assurance on the date when the field trials will take place and the timetable for the legislative changes, and will he also look favourably on the sterilisation programme which is being developed in my constituency?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for her questions. On the development of cattle vaccine, which I think she was asking about, we do not have an immediate timetable when we can start. These are complex, difficult trials and we need to work out, working closely with the European Commission, how we bring them in in practical terms. A major issue is what we do with the animals that may have been treated, because we have to decide whether they can go for human consumption or not.