Pet Abduction Bill

Ben Everitt Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

The latest figures that I have show that in 2020, with 9.6 million dogs in the country, there were only 2,000 reports of dog theft. By contrast, the latest figures show that in England and Wales in 2022-23, 130,521 motor vehicle thefts were reported—one every five minutes. We therefore need to keep the issue in context. There seems to be an exponential increase in the incidence of motor vehicle theft and an inability of the police and the prosecuting authorities to investigate thoroughly and prosecute the perpetrators. The number of motor vehicle thefts being resolved by the prosecution and enforcement authorities seems to be derisorily low. I therefore do not think we should have guidance that essentially says to the police that dealing with the potential prosecution or investigation of a theft of an unmicrochipped dog or cat should take precedence over trying to find the perpetrators—often gangs—who are stealing motor vehicles to order off the streets, and in some cases even from people’s garages or drives.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Perhaps he might consider that the instances of motor vehicles being stolen to order are a symptom of organised crime, just as we recognise that pet theft is now a key contributor to organised crime.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I accept that behind the incidence of pet theft there is organised crime, but in the latest figures that we have, that organised crime has resulted in only some 2,000 incidents of dog theft, compared with more than 130,000 incidents of motor vehicle theft, many of which have been stolen to order. I accept that some of the pet theft we are experiencing is because pets of increasing value are being stolen to order, so I am not saying that we should not deal with that; I am saying that we should ensure that the guidance issued reflects the public priorities and does not divert too much police resource away to concentrate on pet theft rather than other crimes such as motor vehicle theft.

That is the background to new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. I hope that in responding, my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he will do that anyway, so there will be no need to include this provision in the Bill.

In our discussion, one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was that he would prefer the Bill to go through the House totally unamended. I suspect, however, that that aspiration has been abandoned, because the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, has tabled her own amendments. They seem perfectly reasonable, but that would mean the Bill would be amended in this place. If the Bill is to be amended, one or two of her amendments could be a complemented by other amendments, should they be necessary. In that respect there has been a development since our meeting, when nobody declared a need for the Bill to be amended. My hon. Friend will speak in due course.

I will speak briefly to some of my other points. The Bill, as drafted, states:

“A person (A) commits the offence of dog abduction if they—

(a) take a dog so as to remove it from the lawful control of any person,

or

(b) detain a dog so as to keep it from the lawful control of any person who is entitled to…it”.

It is only after having been arrested for that offence that a person could take advantage of the defence, under clause 1(2), that before the alleged abduction the pet was living in the same household as that person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Everitt]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) on her work on the Bill, which is much needed, and I am very pleased to speak in favour it.

We are a nation of dog and cat owners, and many Members will be able to say that those animals are like family, and to speak about the fact that they play such an important role in our life and the life of our children. I do not know where Marmalade and Merlin came from, the newly famous Southend West residents, but Magic and Ninja came from Cats Protection, which has had so many mentions today. I know, through Magic and Ninja, what an impact cats can have on families, in particular children.

In Milton Keynes, we have an abundance of green spaces, with miles and miles of lake shoreline and canal towpaths—ideal for walking dogs. If you need to walk a dog, come to Milton Keynes. But that brings with it the added risk of pet theft. As an animal lover, and the representative of a beautiful constituency in which to walk the dog, I have to say that the very idea of stealing pets, often for profit and breeding, is sick.

The Bill fills a gap that has existed in law for far too long. Until now, pet theft was categorised as a type of property theft. That is in no way reflective of the nature of the crime and its impact on victims. We spoke briefly about the link with organised crime. It is increasingly worrying that, like other types of theft, such as the theft of farm machinery and prestige vehicles, pet theft seems to be done to order by gangs of organised criminals. The supply chain of organised crime is obviously horrendous. To think that pet theft is financing it is abhorrent.

In Milton Keynes and the wider Thames Valley, our rural crime taskforce has recently been nearly doubled in size, which will be a significant comfort to the many legitimate breeders based in our villages. I applaud our police and crime commissioner, Matthew Barber, for making that decision.

It is critical that the punishment for this crime is enough to deter individuals and groups from engaging in this despicable criminal activity. The Bill ensures exactly that; I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and the Government for the work that they have done to develop it so far. Under the legislation, offenders will face the possibility of up to five years in prison, a fine or both. The spectre of such punishment should have the desired effect. Organised crime groups profit particularly from the trade in pedigree cats, but such groups will think twice about offending, should the Bill become law.

The Bill addresses differences in the behaviour of dogs and cats really well. Dogs spend much more time indoors than cats. Try keeping cats indoors. They tend to roam outside freely, at their own will, visiting neighbours—“Six Dinner Sid” springs to mind. The Bill understands that distinction, and ensures that for cats, the offence applies only when a cat is taken, not when it is detained. That will mean police can focus on cases of clear criminality without undue interference. He is no longer in his place, but my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) raised concerns about police time; this aspect of the legislation goes some way to ease those concerns. This is sensible and practical law-making. The new offences mean that we can start to record the crimes with better accuracy. As we have heard, some forces record these crimes specifically, and others do not. We will be able to spot patterns that could be linked to certain factors, such as organised crime.

This Conservative Government can be proud of their achievements on animal welfare. The Bill will widen the scope of the Government’s action plan on animal welfare. It is another step forward in putting the UK at the forefront of animal welfare globally. Toughening the country’s laws against animal cruelty is a key priority. That is why we have already passed legislation such as the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which raises the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years, and the landmark Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which became law two years ago and formally recognises animals as sentient beings in domestic law. The Bill almost acts as a strong-arm extension of that Act. Pets are sentient beings, whom we have to love and cherish as our own. We need laws that recognise that fact and, crucially, protect them. In that regard, this Government have delivered and then some.

Our progress on animal welfare does not stop there. We have also passed legislation requiring the microchipping of cats, as we heard from the Minister; cat owners must microchip their cats by June this year. That will make it easier to pick up cats that have been abducted, and to identify stray pets, so that they can be reunited with their owners.

It is always a pleasure to speak in support of Bills that have clear cross-party support and cut through party political battle lines. Issues such as these remind us of the common ground we have in this place, and that we can put party politics aside to make progress on areas of policy such as animal welfare, which matters to millions of people across the country.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Ben Everitt Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft)—sunny Scunny. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for his brilliant work on this much-needed Bill, and on the broader issue of animal welfare. The UK is playing a leading role in standing up for animal welfare around the world.

Through the action plan for animal welfare, the Government have introduced—and continue to introduce —a series of vital reforms in areas such as animal sentience, farm animal welfare and international advocacy. Last year, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill became law, which saw the introduction of some of the strictest sanctions in Europe for animal cruelty offences. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill aims to fortify protections for pets, livestock and kept wild animals. Through that legislation, the Conservative party is delivering on our 2019 manifesto commitments, and I look forward to its return to the House when parliamentary time allows.

On the central issue of hunting trophies, I am sure that many hon. Members have seen images on social media of hunters standing over slain lions or elephants. These are appalling acts of needless violence that are having a damaging effect on global conservation efforts. It is high time that the UK played its part in cracking down on that practice.

The report by the APPG on banning trophy hunting is damning and eye-opening. In it, we hear about the extensive operation behind trophy hunting, where online forums advertise so-called trophy hunting holidays. It is not my kind of holiday—nor one that would be enjoyed by any hon. Members. The hunting industry is seemingly driven by organisations offering prestigious prizes for shooting a certain number of species. Perhaps, when hunters cannot bring back their trophies to the UK, the motivation for travelling across the world to kill endangered animals will be far less powerful.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member rightly mentions the organisations that are operating. It appears that many supposedly grassroots organisations, particularly in Africa, are actually driven by the fanatical United States gun lobby. Should we not say to people who fall for that—interestingly enough, that is not many members of the British hunting community—that they need to distinguish between grassroots and astroturf?

[Ben Everitt]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and makes his point well. We in this House are limited as to what we can control through the scope of the Bill, but this is what we can do to make a difference. I am sure that the National Rifle Association will be poring over Hansard and reading his comments with trepidation.

The practice of killing endangered animals for the purpose of hunting trophies is abhorrent and immoral, and many of my constituents in Milton Keynes North feel the same. We in this House have the power to do our bit to tackle this despicable practice by introducing one of the toughest bans in the world on the import of hunting trophies through the Bill.

This strict import ban will have a twofold impact. First, we will make huge strides towards putting a stranglehold on this damaging practice. Secondly, by cutting off the ability of hunters to bring back their hunts, we will support the conservation of thousands of endangered species. In Kenya, for example, where trophy hunting is banned, the populations of lions, rhinos and elephants are rising fastest. As highlighted in the APPG’s report, animal populations have benefited hugely from trophy hunting bans in Botswana and Zambia.

It is clear that there is a strong mandate for a ban on trophy hunting imports. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see those imports banned, and public opinion, as we have heard many times, reflects that strongly. The Bill is about more than just a ban on trophy hunting imports; it is about dealing a significant blow to the industry and organisations that thrive and profit from trophy hunting. That is an important cause that I hope the House will support.

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill

Ben Everitt Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I rise to support this commendable Bill, which has come at a fantastic time. In particular, I am very proud to be a Government Member under what I think is the most animal-friendly Government in the history of this country. I am also surrounded by, it appears to me, the most animal-friendly members of that Government, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), whose adventures in animal husbandry seem to have put her in good stead for her current job. Being a PPS is probably incredibly similar to her adventures with Andrew.

I am pleased that farmers will not be unfairly penalised and that the risk of unfairly penalising them will be reduced as a result of these measures. Putting the penalty midway between a caution and the full force of the law seems to be a sensible step to make sure that the mid-range is available to prosecutors. Farmers are possibly the biggest friends that animals have, because it is literally their job to be kind to animals. If they are not, they are doing their job badly. I am not saying that there are not rare cases of that not happening, but in general, I take my hat off to our farmers, particularly those in Milton Keynes North.

I met the fantastic people from Milton Keynes & District Cats Protection recently. We got our cats from there. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) gave an impromptu shout out to my youngest—my anarchist—so it would be remiss of me not to mention my two cats, Magic and Ninja. We have enjoyed them as lockdown cats over the last year.

Their names are a tribute to my campaigning prowess because I lobbied hard for them to be called Slash and Axl. Unfortunately, I was outnumbered in the household by just four to one. I note that the cats of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) came from Cats Protection as well. It was sad to hear that Noodle was shot with a BB gun as a kitten and, frankly, well done to Noodle for making it to 21 years.

Cats Protection wanted to talk to me about the huge increase in airgun attacks on cats in the last few years. It is right to draw awareness to animal welfare and animal cruelty issues, so I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for bringing the Bill to the House.

Having mentioned Noodle, I cannot miss the opportunity to mention Peter Britcliffe, who apparently put the cat in the fridge. As the former Mayor of Hyndburn, we always knew that he was a cool cat but apparently that is his hobby as well.

Milton Keynes is a wonderful place but, unfortunately, it struggles with some animal welfare issues, not just the unfortunate airgun incidents that have occurred in the last year. There is also an increasing risk of pet theft, so I am pleased about these measures, which would be a timely addition to our armoury in prosecutions and sentencing.

This week, we launched the Milton Keynes pet theft taskforce. I am pleased to be working with Shazna Muzammil, Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Barber, my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and Councillor Alex Walker, who is the leader of the Milton Keynes Conservative group. Pet theft is an animal welfare issue, because people who steal pets will not necessarily be very nice to them, so that tool in our armoury for prosecutions is welcome.

I will end with some statistics. The 2020 RSPCA statistics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe are more up to date than the ones I have, but were potentially affected by the pandemic. In 2019, the RSPCA investigated more than 130,000 complaints of cruelty against animals and secured 1,678 convictions. Any incidence of cruelty against animals is too much, therefore I will be supporting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As was the case for everybody, my first and pleasurable task is to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for introducing this important Bill and for the passion and commitment he has shown on this issue, not only today, but for decades—many Members have referred to that. He has been concerned with caring for and looking after, and I, too, think that there is no more fitting tribute than that picture we saw this morning of him with Vivienne in his arms, which was just beautiful. I hope that our friend Sir David Amess is looking down and smiling on two individuals of whom he could not have been fonder.

Penalty notices will be an important tool in encouraging animal keepers to follow the rules and discourage them from committing more serious offences. The Bill is meant to be there in the middle for the redirection of behaviour, as has been so ably explained. It has the Government’s full support and we will do all we can to make sure that its passage through the Commons and Lords is as collaborative as possible, because I agree with my hon. Friend that getting legislation right is what we are all here to do.

I pay tribute to all those who contributed today: my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and for Gedling (Tom Randall). I think that in only two contributions were we not shown that we are a complete nation of pet lovers, in not only the way we articulate it, but in the fact that we spend our lives rescuing and loving those four-legged friends, who, in the main, behave, Andrew notwithstanding. I have thoroughly enjoyed hearing about Poppy, Godfrey, Andrew, Geoffrey, Magic, Ninja, Frazzle, Clapton, Clemmie, Peppy, Ebony, Carter, Cookie and any I may have missed. I think the guinea pig has a hard time and it did not actually get named. I would love to add to that list my special Wellington, who is at home with a bit of a lampshade on at the moment.

Some 44% of us in this country keep a pet, and in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs we understand the importance of that. We also understand that farming is more than just a job, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North pointed out, and the majority of our farmers could be no better examples of people who love our animals. I am proud that this Government will continue to elevate our reputation for animal health and welfare in this country. We have a long tradition of protecting animals, as has been said. The UK was the first country in the world to pass legislation on this, with the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822. Recently, this House paid tribute to Sir David, but I just wish to reference the fact that he campaigned so diligently for animal welfare, as it was so important to him. He was responsible for introducing the Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 and if this Bill goes forward to Committee, we could discuss how it might help take things forward in that area—my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) mentioned the issue only yesterday. It is precisely the sort of area we may wish to introduce this penalty notice in.

Sir David also campaigned to stop the testing of domestic products on animals, tackled the illegal wildlife trade and fought to end puppy farming. If he were here today, he would be joining this debate, with his humour. It is such a sad loss that we do not have him here.

We are continuing in the vein of innovating with legislation on this matter. Earlier this year, we published the action plan for animal welfare, setting out our aims and ambitions across the piece. In spring 2022, we will launch the animal health and welfare pathway, starting with a fully funded vet visit eligible to all farmers. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 gained Royal Assent this year, as has been mentioned during the debate. We are planning further improvements to the lives of animals in a number of other areas, including setting up a pet theft taskforce. However, it strikes me that many areas are beating us to it. Through the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill that was debated in this place on Monday, we have begun steps to ban primates as pets. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford also spoke on that Bill. We will certainly also make good on the manifesto commitments to introduce compulsory microchipping for cats, and to address the issue of excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening.

Robust enforcement for animal health and welfare touches the hearts and minds not only of individuals in this place, but of each and every constituent we have, no matter where we sit in this House. The Bill will fundamentally reform the way in which we enforce animal health and welfare across all farmed animals and kept animals in England. It will strengthen and safeguard animal health and welfare, building on the skeleton of the existing domestic enforcement framework. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford said, there are currently few options beyond prosecution or that guidance, so we are widening the suite of available enforcement tools.

This will be one of the first opportunities to reform how we enforce our high animal health and welfare standards for farm animals now that we are outside the EU and as we move away from cross compliance, hopefully supporting our continued position as a world leader in animal health and welfare. The new system will use a mix of sanctions, advice and guidance to deliver high domestic animal health and welfare standards, thereby enhancing productivity, stopping the spread of disease and so on, and giving confidence to consumers and international trading partners.

Let me turn to a couple of comments made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). He asked whether there will be proper safeguards. We can look at the numbers through the reporting mechanism. I agree with him that more discussion needs to take place, and it will. We are committed to working with non-governmental organisations, relevant industries and enforcers pre-consultation to identify appropriate priority offences.

[Ben Everitt]

Does the Minister have any views on to what extent this is an issue on which we can lead the world? We are proud of our high animal welfare standards in the UK and we have a new global outlook. Are there opportunities to influence the rest of the world for the better on this issue?

[Jo Churchill]

It is always better to lead in areas of good behaviour than to follow. Perhaps if we work together, we can find ourselves in that sweet spot where we have the right suite of tools to ensure that where there is inappropriate behaviour, we are firm; where there is inappropriate behaviour at a low level because of a lack of knowledge, we can guide; and where there is something in between, we can use my hon. Friend the Member for Romford’s penalty notice to ensure that we can redirect that behaviour. We will be identifying priority offences to establish clear and effective guidance, and to ensure that serious offences continue to go through the court, which I think was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford made to me yesterday and on the Floor of the House today.

Let me reiterate the Government’s unwavering support for this legislation. I give my commitment that I will do all that I can as the Bill proceeds through the House.

Environment Bill

Ben Everitt Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

I speak in support of amendments 21 and 28, tabled by the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I thank the Ramblers and other campaign groups that are supporting the amendments and campaigning to promote public access to nature.

The amendments have a simple purpose: to extend the Bill from just protecting nature to ensuring that we can all access nature. The lockdowns and restrictions of the past year have shown us how important it is for people to have access to high-quality outside space. Although we have all been staying at home to protect the NHS, getting out for regular exercise, whether walking, cycling or running, has been vital to protecting people’s mental health.

The use of outside space is to be encouraged after the pandemic, not written off as a temporary phase, but that will mean protecting and expanding green spaces in our cities and supporting and encouraging people to get out into the countryside. As it stands, the Bill allows the Government to set targets for promoting access to nature, which is welcome, but I am concerned that that may end up as a low priority, and we should not allow that to happen.

The amendments would guarantee that future Governments had to take action to protect our access to nature. They would ensure that nature was available to more people, not just those who can afford to access it. We need that to change, because there are already serious inequalities in access to open spaces. Only 57% of adults in the UK live within a five-minute walk of green space, whether a park, field or canal path, but even that disappointing headline figure hides significant further inequalities.

Only two in five people from black and other minority ethnic communities say that they can walk to a green space within five minutes. Adults with a household income below £15,000 are twice as likely to say that they cannot access green space as those with a household income of £70,000. One in four people in my local area of Salford is in that first income band. People in the most deprived areas of England tend to have the poorest health and significantly less green space than those in wealthier areas. We need to do much more to ensure that access to nature is equitable for everyone.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government will set targets for public access to nature, and that they will include widening access to ensure that more people are able to enjoy it? Such targets are only the first step. We will also need concerted action, such as subsidies to farmers to promote access over their land, and the promotion of public transport links from inner-city areas to green, open spaces and the countryside. Without such action and clear targets to prompt it, there remains a danger that access to nature will continue to be denied to many people, so I urge the Government to accept the amendments.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Before the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) gave her contribution over video link, I thought I would be the only Member to speak without tabling a new clause or amendment. The truth is that I actually quite like this Bill—it is a good Bill. It feels like we are having a good day at the office. That does not mean that we should not be debating it, of course, and that is what I am here to do.

Chiefly, I am disappointed by the delay. Climate change is obviously the biggest, most strategic threat that we face as a country and a planet. We have the tactical immediate threat of coronavirus, of course. It is unfortunate, but understandable, that the legislative timetable split. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), I remain confident that the Bill will return in the next Session. I seek assurances from the Minister that my colleagues still have that ambition and enthusiasm to make sure that these changes become law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Everitt Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If there is disruption to people visiting the UK as a result of restrictions put in place, or general concern in other countries, that may have an impact on the number of seasonal workers who come here from countries such as Bulgaria. We are working with the industry and the National Farmers Union to assess the situation, and we will be working on proposals to address it before May and June, which is when it is likely to present itself as an issue.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

The covid-19 pandemic presents significant challenges for our country and, indeed, the rest of the world. It is currently my primary focus. I have been holding regular calls with key players in the food supply chain, to ensure that we take whatever steps are necessary to enable our food producers, distributors and retailers to meet an increase in demand. I wish to record my thanks to all those who work in the food industry—whether on a production line, driving a delivery vehicle or in a supermarket—for all the hard work they are putting in at this difficult time.

[Ben Everitt]

Our farmers are famously hardy folk, but like everybody else they are not immune to the effects of coronavirus, and nor are farm businesses. What further support will be available to farmers?

[George Eustice]

Earlier this week the Chancellor unveiled a package of measures to support all businesses, and some farmers would qualify for that. I am having regular meetings with the National Farmers Union to address any concerns that it might have. The NFU’s principal concern, in common with many other industries in the food supply chain, is the potential pressures on staff.

Flood Response

Ben Everitt Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

Yes, I will. It is very important that people affected by the flooding in November can access the package of support that was introduced. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to talk about it.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

My beautiful constituency is not immune to flooding, and neither is it immune to the reckless growth ambitions of the Labour-led council. We must take steps to look after the houses that are already there. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the Government remain committed to protecting an extra 300,000 houses from flooding?

[Theresa Villiers]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our £2.6 billion programme is designed to protect 300,000 properties and give significant protection to agricultural land and the transport system. It is a record level of investment. We are investing more in flood defences than any previous Government, because we know how important that is in the context of a changing climate.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Ben Everitt Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

It is important to recognise that a significant proportion of sheep farmers in particular do not receive the basic payment scheme area payment, because they are on contract farm agreements and the landlord receives that money. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I think the principle of investing in public goods has support across the House, but we need to strike this new course sensitively and ensure that agriculture remains profitable. We want a vibrant and profitable agriculture industry, which is why the Agriculture Bill also makes provision for payments to improve productivity, and sets a quite long transition period of seven years, so that we can gradually phase out the old legacy scheme. He will be reassured to hear that the Bill before us makes no changes at all for the coming year. Farmers in his constituency can rest assured that once this Bill is passed, the direct payment scheme will operate this year in exactly the same way as it has in previous years.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a balance to be struck between incentivising productivity and rewarding farmers for their role in looking after our countryside—the hedges, copses and spinneys that make England, and indeed Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, so unique in their character, and so different from some intensive agricultural operations in European and beyond? If we are to remain competitive and our land is to remain productive and profitable, we need to find a system that balances those priorities, protecting what we love about our countryside, while recognising the wonderful contribution our farmers make to our agricultural economy.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is all about striking the right balance. The premise behind the direction of agriculture policy is this: rather than trying to put on a sticking-plaster, and masking poor profitability in agriculture, we ought to have a coherent policy that rewards farmers properly for their work to improve the environment, create new habitats and so on, and that makes them able to become more profitable by investing in new equipment, adding value to their product and improving transparency in the supply chain. That is our approach—tackling the causes of poor profitability, not masking them with an arbitrary area-based subsidy.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. Let me say two things. First, clause 3, which I was going to come on to—I understood that you wanted me to address all the clauses simultaneously, Madam Deputy Speaker—deals with that issue in respect of the claim year 2020, in that it gives us powers akin to those that were in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make particular modifications and changes, simply to make this body of law operable. For instance, it enables us to replace the words “European Commission” with the words “UK Minister”, or, indeed, “devolved Administration Minister”, and it gives us the power to introduce subsequent statutory instruments to make the legislation operable.

Secondly and more broadly, for the purpose of future policy, the Agriculture Bill includes a power to modify policy. This Bill does not modify policy, but it gives us the power to make operable changes akin to those in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.

[Ben Everitt]

I think it important to learn the lessons of our involvement in the common agricultural policy over the years, and to consider some of the things that have gone wrong with it. In the context of implementing future changes in regulation, we should recognise that, for example, the set-aside rule—which those of us who were in farming in those days know and love—would sometimes represent the difference between profit and loss for a farm. To put it bluntly, the difference between the farm being viable and not viable was what the EU paid farmers not to grow anything. How can we incorporate that balance between productivity in our land and a viable economic agricultural and rural sector in our future legislation? I am heartened to hear that we are keeping that option in this Bill.

[George Eustice]

I agree that we must learn the lessons of the common agricultural policy. Having dealt with it for some seven years in total, I know that it is something of a bureaucratic quagmire. It is very difficult to navigate, and we tend to find that the more rules we invent, the more rules we need in order to make sense of the ones that we already have. That is why we end up with all sorts of complexity, as set out in the 127-page document containing guidance and rules for farmers.

The real lesson to be learnt is that whatever we do in future should be less rules-based and more based on delivering outcomes, and should also be tailored to the needs of an individual farm. When farms have poor profitability, we should try to tackle the causes of that poor profitability by helping farmers to invest and improve fairness in the supply chain, rather than by means of an arbitrary area-based payment. That is the direction of travel that we have set out.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Ben Everitt Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. The point of the CAP, with all its faults, was to provide cheap food and to provide it consistently. One could argue that the system was flawed—in many ways it was—but that was the honourable aim of it.

I want to touch on one or two points connected to the Bill. We hear time and again about the need to reduce flooding. I hear the word “rewilding” being used more and more. Before long, I am sure there will be wolves back in Scotland. There is now talk of putting beavers back in Dorset. A beaver creates a dam. A beaver has younger beavers and they go off and create more dams. The rivers in Dorset are tiny, and if they are dammed and protected—as surely they would be by the environmental lobby—there will be flooding on an epic scale. Can we please look at evidence-based beaver rewilding, rather than just banging beavers back into Dorset or anywhere else without any thought for the consequences? While welcoming wildlife, which we all do, can we please have some common sense in its reintroduction?

Points have been made about the multi-annual budget. Farmers desperately need consistency and certainty of income because, as we have heard, they are reliant on the weather. The weather is not always particularly kind to farmers, but it is vital that they have incomes to survive.

We have all had experiences of the RPA. I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). The RPA attended on many occasions, and each time it had fallen short. It has to make sure that the money gets to the farmers.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Certainty is absolutely paramount. When the single farm payment was introduced, I asked my dad, who was the manager of a farm, “Have you got your single farm payment?” He replied, “Some of it.” We really need to sort out the RPA payment issues.

On a wider point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has said, if we value something, we should pay for it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has mentioned wheat prices and the true price of wheat. There is a cost to husbanding the countryside and we should recognise farmers’ traditional role as custodians of our countryside, nature and biodiversity. If we value that, we should find a way of paying for it and of communicating that to society, so that the role played by farmers in their communities and society can be recognised.

[Richard Drax]

I absolutely agree with every word my hon. Friend has just said. I have huge respect for the Minister, who is himself a farmer. On valuing farmers, they have to have access to grants to meet all the environmental rules. It takes more than a few hundred pounds to dig a slurry pit, for example; we are talking about tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds to make sure it meets all the various criteria. Small farmers just do not have access to such vast sums of money. They either go bust or ask a bank if they can borrow money, and in most cases the answer will be no. Farmers, particularly small farmers, need access to grants to help them to farm efficiently and to address all the environmental concerns.

I have two final points to make. I absolutely concur with the shadow Minister on food security. Food in this country will be affected by scares all around the world and, in the worst-case scenario, war. We have been there before with world war two. I am not saying that we are going to go to war again, but all sorts of dramas and strategies around the world could lead to some sort of food shortage. Therefore, food security—looking after food production in our country—is absolutely crucial.

Finally, I agree with the NFU that there is no point in meeting all the extraordinary standards set in this country, with which I entirely concur, only to be undermined by imports from other countries, particularly third-world countries, where the standards are nowhere near as high as ours and they can reduce the price of their food. Of course, people purchasing food, particularly the large supermarkets, will be tempted to go down the cheaper route, so may I urge the Government to keep an eye on that?