Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
The Government are in the final stages of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU to make agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier by removing trade barriers for British producers. An SPS agreement could increase the volume of UK exports of major primary agricultural commodities to the EU by around 16%. A regulatory impact assessment will be prepared as part of the normal process. Details are subject to ongoing negotiations, and we will not be providing a running commentary.
Charlie Dewhirst
England has become a world leader in gene editing and precision breeding. That has increased crop yields and eradicated diseases, and it helps to protect domestic, and potentially global, food security. But much of this technology is banned in the European Union, and dynamic alignment will mean that we cannot use it. What representations has the Minister made to the Cabinet Office and to Ministers in negotiations with the European Union to ensure that gene editing and our world-leading technologies are protected?
Stephen Morgan
I am committed to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. Details of the agreement are subject to negotiation, and the EU-UK “Common Understanding” sets out the agreement, which will include a short list of exceptions. I can confirm that the UK has been clear about the importance of being able to support the use of new and innovative technologies.
Support for Farmers
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for his speech. Farming is not simply another industry. Farmers produce the food that sustains us, manage much of our countryside and underpin a wider food and drink economy. Agriculture alone contributes £14.5 billion to the economy, while the wider food and drink sector contributed £153.2 billion in 2023. That does not just matter to the economy; maintaining domestic food production to at least current levels is integral to our national security.
As the Prime Minister said in this House last month, farming and food production are part of this country’s sovereign production and manufacturing capacity, which we will need to strengthen in the years to come. We will need to depend on it, and therefore we need to strengthen it—that is a clear commitment. That is why this Government are committed to backing British farmers and maintaining domestic food production to at least current levels.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On the point about maintaining domestic food production, the Minister will no doubt be aware of the problems facing the pig sector. We have had tens of thousands of pigs backed up on farms, contracts cancelled, and farmers losing up to £50 a pig. What discussions have the Minister and colleagues had with the pig sector, and what plans do the Government have to support our Great British pig farms?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. I can confirm that the Farming Minister and other colleagues have been in active conversation with the National Pig Association and are continuing that dialogue.
Our farming road map sets out a long-term direction for the sector that is more profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient, and better able to withstand climate, market and geopolitical shocks.
I want to acknowledge just how difficult this year has been. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson set out the extraordinary combination of pressures that farmers have faced this year alone: drought and water shortages, reduced grass and forage growth, difficult crop conditions, and higher irrigation and feed costs. At the same time, the conflict in the middle east has put further pressure on fertiliser and fuel prices.
Sustainable Farming Incentive
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has been engaging with me already so that we can learn lessons from SFI26, and for convening colleagues in the process. Uplands are an area of priority for me. I am very impressed by the work Dr Hilary Cottam has been doing in Dartmoor. We are looking to deliver that scheme elsewhere in the country. It is absolutely something that I want to take forward with him and I look forward to doing so.
Charlie Dewhirst
The simple fact of the matter is that this scheme’s portal opened at 10 am and closed at 3.48 pm, at a time when most farmers are at work, and for agents representing farmers, that was simply enough time to fill in multiple applications. I have a very simple question to the Minister: will he apologise?
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
The short answer is yes—I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. That is why I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on planning reform to ensure that those planning barriers are not holding back investment into the farming sector.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State seemed to ignore the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) about the use of land and increasing food production, so I will ask specifically again: how are our farmers expected to increase food production if we are taking 9% of agricultural land out of productive use?
Emma Reynolds
As we set out in our land use framework, our intention in working with the sector is to ensure that we have more productive and profitable farms and multifunctional land use so that we maintain, if not increase, food production levels, alongside the land use changes that we need to secure a sustainable farming transition.
Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We are simplifying the SFI precisely because we want more farmers to benefit from it. At the moment, 25% of SFI funding goes to just 4% of farms, and we do not think that is right. We are simplifying the scheme, so that it is easier and less costly to administer. We have new leadership at the Rural Payments Agency, as he will know, and the cap he talked about affects only a tiny minority of those who already have an agreement. [Interruption.] He can keep shouting at me from a sedentary position, but I cannot talk and listen, believe it or not. There is a record number of farmers in our schemes, unlike under the previous Government, who failed to get the money out the door.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
We are negotiating an SPS deal with our closest trading partner, the EU, to reduce barriers, and cut friction, costs and delays at the border for businesses. Last week, I launched a call for information to understand how best we can support businesses to make the best of this opportunity.
Charlie Dewhirst
Various farming organisations have expressed their concern about the potential negative impact of dynamic alignment with the EU. CropLife’s report suggested that immediate alignment could cost British farming £800 million in year one, and could see wheat production reduced by more than 15%. What is the Secretary of State doing to work with Cabinet Office colleagues to ensure that they understand the potential negative impacts of an SPS deal, so that we do not sell out our farmers, as they sold out the fishing industry?
Emma Reynolds
This is about making it easier for farmers and other food processors in the food chain to export to our biggest export market. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman—I know he is an assiduous member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—that we are in touch with the National Farmers Union and others about the negotiations. They are ongoing. I cannot provide a running commentary on them, but as was set out in the common understanding between the UK and the EU, there will be a number of exceptions, and we want to see a smooth transition to the new system.
Fishing Industry
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for today’s very important debate. I would like to start by paying tribute to the fishermen and women of Bridlington and Hornsea in my constituency and to the RNLI and inshore rescue teams who keep our fishermen safe right across the UK.
The House will be well aware that Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, landing over 300 tonnes every year, and the largest shellfish landing port in the UK. I hope that next time the Minister is back in Brid, she has the opportunity to sample some of our fine fresh seafood at Salt on the Harbour or the Old Lifeboat Station opposite the Spa.
I welcome the fishing and coastal growth fund, but I caution that it is £360 million over 12 years, which is £30 million a year. In a harbour like Bridlington, the cost of a major upgrade, or in fact just normal maintenance to harbour walls, often runs into millions of pounds. I fear that we could quickly run out of money for major capital projects, but I hope that those capital projects can apply to this fund and that Bridlington will be able to benefit from it. I also hope that we will be able to address the skills issues, which are key for the fishing industry. We need to attract school leavers into the industry and ensure we have the next generation of people out there at sea; this is a real problem up and down the country at the moment.
Another issue I would like to talk about is spatial squeeze. The Government are consulting on a land use framework, which is welcome, but we need something similar for the marine environment. We have heard from Members today about the challenges of juggling space for renewable energy, and there are very large offshore wind farms in Hornsea.
John Cooper
Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that the SNP denies the existence of spatial squeeze, and advisers told senior figures in the Government not to talk about spatial squeeze? Spatial squeeze is real. I return to his point about Bridlington being the lobster capital of Europe. We do not have to divide on this, but I think he will find that it is, in fact, Port William.
Charlie Dewhirst
On that second point, we will have to agree to disagree, but my hon. Friend is right in terms of spatial squeeze. If it is not an issue, I do not understand why it takes up so much of the briefing from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations; they, I suspect, are the real experts in this area.
I turn to the EU deal and the frustration that our fishing industry has been sold out for the next 12 years in return for an SPS deal that has yet to be negotiated. I fear that things have got worse since that announcement was made. In fact, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has contacted MPs to say:
“In last year’s annual negotiations between the UK and the EU that concluded last December, something new happened that has deeply alarmed UK fishermen. As well as deciding fish quotas for 2026 as expected, the two sides also agreed new technical fisheries management rules for their respective national waters. We are told that the EU proposed these measures and that the UK negotiating team was blindsided by their inclusion in the talks. Nevertheless, they agreed to them. Rules that govern how British fishermen can work in British waters were changed, at short notice and without consultation, at the request of the EU. This is unprecedented.”
It went on to say:
“It was startling to learn… that the collaborative, evidence-based process that we all thought we were working within had been set aside in favour of a bargain struck between civil servants over a few days in London and Brussels. More troubling still, the rules will be more lenient in EU waters.”
That says to me, “sell out again”, and it sets a direction of travel as we negotiate an SPS deal with the European Union. It is clear that we are negotiating from a very weak position, and are willing to do whatever the EU pleases to have a deal done by the end of this year. This Government could perhaps learn lessons from the previous one about setting false deadlines for trade negotiations. I am happy to admit that we made mistakes in the early days post Brexit, and I caution against doing the same now.
It would be remiss of me not to touch on bottom-trawling. The issue has become a focus for anti-fishing groups, but if it were to be banned across our marine protected areas, that would destroy the industry overnight and decimate certain coastal communities. Much of the campaign against it misrepresents the industry; it is not as damaging as some organisations say it is. I hope that the Minister will take up the issue with the industry, and will ensure that bottom-trawling is properly represented in any negotiations about the use of that technique.
In conclusion, I am proud to represent such a successful fishing industry. I know that Bridlington is close to the Minister’s heart, and I would love the opportunity to meet her, perhaps even in Bridlington, and local fishermen to discuss the future of the industry, so that we do what we can, together, to support the lobster capital of Europe.
Agricultural Sector: Import Standards
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I will start by setting the scene to explain why we import so much food and why we are not self-sufficient.
We are never going to be self-sufficient in food—certainly not in bananas or avocados, but not in some meat sectors either. Although we produce very large quantities of lamb and beef, we are only 58% self-sufficient in pork; I think the figure is a little higher in poultry. If we were 100% self-sufficient in pork, we would have to export so much more to achieve a carcase balance and achieve value for the farmer from the pig that it would be quite a challenge. As a great nation of bacon butty lovers, we eat a lot of bacon, to the extent that we have to import a certain amount. We are therefore exporting other cuts of a pig, such as belly pork to Europe and fifth quarter to China. That all adds value and achieves a better price for our hard-working farmers.
It is important to point out that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreements that we have been talking about do not cover some of the welfare issues that we have discussed, which are separate. The challenge of those agreements, as our trade negotiators are very aware, is that a country can fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules by telling another country what welfare standards it expects it to employ, so it can find itself in difficulties. In making any trade agreements with other countries, we need to be conscious that we should allow market access only where we are satisfied that welfare standards have been met.
At the moment, when it comes to EU-UK import-export relations and livestock and meat, we are at a relatively similar welfare standard. I mean no criticism of the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling)—it is all quite technical—but sow stalls are not the same as farrowing crates. The sow stall ban in 1999 was a challenge because the EU did not implement it immediately, and that caused us a lot of problems. Farrowing crates are a topic of conversation at the moment. They are part of the animal welfare strategy that the Government have published, and the industry has been working very closely on them for a number of years. About 60,000 traditional farrowing crates are in place in the UK. To convert to a free farrowing system would require planning permission; the crates cannot just be pulled out and replaced. It will be a huge challenge.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that the issue with the sow stall ban in 1999 was that there was not a sufficient transition period. I hesitate to say this, but I think she is experienced enough to have been here at the time. [Interruption.] Yes, she was here at the time. We lost 50% of the British pig industry. That did not mean that we ate 50% less pork; it meant that we imported a load more from abroad.
Whatever happens and whatever measures are taken on pigs, poultry or anything else, it is really important that we do not reduce our domestic food production, lower our food security, reduce British jobs in farming and replace them with jobs abroad and meat produced abroad, often to standards that we would not like. That will be a key issue as the Government take forward their animal welfare strategy. They must ensure that we do not diverge from or move too far ahead of European Union producers, because we are reliant on a huge amount of meat from the European Union. If we put greater production costs on our farmers, we will disadvantage them and naturally they will be displaced. It is a really important issue.
The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire was right to raise the US. The US still has sow stalls, which were banned in this country 27 years ago. The US does not have ambitious targets to reduce antibiotics, as we do. The UK pig industry has reduced antibiotics by 69% since 2015, so we have been making real progress without the intervention of Government, and there is a recognition that we need to use fewer antibiotics. The issue is that it adds costs and lowers production levels because producers are not able to use outdated methods, particularly sow stalls. That puts us at a disadvantage with some trading partners.
In my previous life, before being elected to this place, I was closely involved with the negotiations on the Canada deal. That was a similar challenge: Canada has methods that we would not accept in certain areas. In the Australia deal, pigs were not included at all because we felt that the welfare standards were not sufficiently high enough for us to import them. The Minister is definitely aware of that. It is important that we all work together to ensure that in any moves we make on trade and food imports, we are always mindful of protecting the great British farmer.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this vital debate and for his thoughtful speech, and I extend that to other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, too. It is an important opportunity for us to consider an issue that sits at the intersection of the food we eat, trade, animal welfare and the sustainability of our rural economy.
The UK’s post-Brexit free trade agreements have rightly opened up new opportunities for British exporters, but they have also raised concerns about how imports are produced, particularly as we look to increase our welfare ambitions. By cutting tariffs on agricultural products from partner countries, those deals can unintentionally allow products to enter the UK that are produced to far lower animal welfare or environmental standards than those expected of our farmers. These are not minor issues; they go to the heart of how we support our brilliant domestic producers and how we maintain public confidence in the food we eat.
Practices that are banned or tightly regulated in the UK—conventional battery cages for hens, sow stalls, tail docking of pigs, and certain pesticides—remain permitted elsewhere, and those products inevitably end up on our supermarket shelves. Without clear protections, imports produced in that way risk undercutting our farmers, and they undermine the principle that high welfare production should be the norm, not just for British producers.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission, which advises the Government on trade deals, has highlighted those differences and warned that they have both ethical and economic consequences. British farmers investing in high-welfare sustainable production should not be left competing on an uneven playing field against imports produced more cheaply by cutting corners. That applies to raw materials as well as finished products.
On Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I sit on heard from the formidable Baroness Batters about her profitability review. She mentioned a comment made by Sir Liam Fox, who, as Trade Secretary, argued that the UK should shift post Brexit to importing cheaply produced raw materials and then add value to them under the Union flag. I agree with Baroness Batters that we should reject that reductive view of the value of the excellent raw materials that our British farmers produce. We should be proud of and protect them.
Many organisations, including the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association, have called for core standards for imported agrifood products. These standards would ensure that all food sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, meets the welfare, environmental and production standards expected by the British public. It is entirely reasonable for consumers to expect that pork, beef, eggs or poultry produced abroad meet very similar, or the same, requirements as those produced here.
Two other realities that we have to confront in this debate and which the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, which I chair, has discussed at length are the cost of food and keeping our shelves stocked. As someone who represents a constituency with pockets of deep deprivation, including neighbourhoods that are among the 5% most deprived in the country, I am concerned that a rapid move to equalise all import standards could have a knock-on effect on food prices, which, as I am sure hon. Members right across the House will be aware, have been very high, particularly over the last five years. Equally, we do not want to see a repeat of the empty shelves that we all remember from the pandemic, which brought home the fragility of just-in-time food supply chains when unexpected disruption hits. As my hon. Friend said, these issues are interlinked, and the more we undermine our domestic supply, the more prices will go up and the more reliant we will become on overseas imports.
The Government have recognised these varied concerns. In the trade strategy published last June, it was clear that the Government will uphold high animal welfare standards and will not lower food standards to accommodate imports. It explicitly acknowledged practices that are not allowed domestically, such as sow stalls and battery cages, and committed to assessing whether those imports have an unfair advantage. I hope it will find that they do.
Where necessary, powers such as quotas, exclusions and safeguards will be used to protect domestic sectors that are most at risk. That approach is welcome. It strikes a balance between maintaining the benefits of free trade and ensuring that British farmers are not undermined. But as we have seen in previous trade deals, including in discussions with the United States, it is vital that those protections are clear, enforceable and applied consistently. Without them, we risk creating a market where the lowest welfare products set the price and not the highest standards.
Equally important is transparency for consumers. Recent polling by Opinium for Humane World for Animals shows that the British public often misunderstand what products labelled as, for example, “welfare assured” or that carry the Red Tractor logo actually guarantee. For example, 65% of people incorrectly believe that “welfare assured” prohibits keeping pigs and chickens in cages and 67% believe it prohibits the use of CO2 for slaughter. If consumers discovered that labelling does not match the reality they think it does, nearly half would feel misled, angry or disappointed.
Mandatory labelling is vital. It will protect consumers, support domestic producers and ensure that imported products adhere to the same high standards—or at least that we can see if they do not. Public support for stronger labelling measures is overwhelming, with 77% backing a new animal welfare labelling law and three quarters supporting stricter enforcement by trading standards and the Advertising Standards Authority to prevent misleading claims.
I acknowledge that getting labelling right will require many tricky balances, and that there is only so much space on a packet. I do not downplay those issues, but by combining robust import standards with transparent labelling, the Government could ensure that trade works for farmers, for animals and for consumers alike, reinforcing confidence in the British food system while maintaining fairness and ethical standards.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member highlights an important point about the challenges of potential welfare labelling. If imports are not labelled in the same way, as they probably would not be, British producers could be put at a disadvantage when it comes to what a consumer might think about how something has been produced. We must be conscious of that.
Josh Newbury
The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to be careful how labelling will affect imported goods and therefore what the consumer sees in the supermarket. My take is that, if we educate consumers on the labelling for our standards and, if those labels are absent, what the implications might be for imported products, we can better inform them and protect our domestic producers. That will inevitably have to go along- side any improved labelling for our products.
Animal Welfare Strategy for England
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting that. I think it shows that, across parties, we want to see something done about this matter. I would certainly support the Labour Government making moves to address it.
Another area of great concern to me is non-stun slaughter. I am not going to go through how barbaric that is and how much pain we put animals through as a result, but we are seeing an ever-increasing number of animals being killed by non-stun slaughter. In just two years, the number of sheep slaughtered by non-stun slaughter has increased from 22% to 29%. Under the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, animals must be stunned before slaughter so that they are unconscious and do not experience unnecessary pain.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has long been a doughty champion for animal welfare. The strategy includes other measures around slaughter, such as on the use of carbon dioxide stunning. The industry has looked at various ways to reform that, but it would be very challenging and potentially very costly. Like a number of other measures in the strategy, we must ensure that transition is done with the industry and does not impact British food production or our food security.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Absolutely. We need to do everything we can to produce more food in this country rather than abroad.
I am concerned about the increasing trend of non-stun slaughter. As I said, 29% of all sheep slaughtered in this country are killed through non-stun slaughter. The 1933 Act made it clear that non-stun slaughter is permitted only for religious reasons, but that is clearly not what is happening today. Many retailers, right around the country, sell animals that were non-stun slaughtered; the National Secular Society found that Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Tesco all did so without any form of labelling. It is critical that consumers understand what they are buying.
In this country, 30 million animals are killed by non-stun slaughter—a most awful way of slaughtering animals—every year. We can make a significant difference. There is no reason for them to be killed in that way. In making sure that they are stunned, we can still ensure that they comply with halal and kosher standards. If we want to make sure that animals are put first and that we are looking after them, the Government need to be more robust in squeezing out these practices, and I hope the Minister will say a few words about how she is looking to do that. We want to make sure that our farmers can compete on a fair playing field on the world stage, but we also need to end the barbaric act of non-stun slaughter in this country and deliver higher welfare standards to so many animals.
Rural Communities
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It very much feels like we are back to the future, and like the Minister is channelling her inner Charli XCX and just wants to go back to 1999, because 27 years later, here we are with a Labour Government who are at war with the countryside, discussing issues like hunting, potentially enormously damaging changes to the pig industry, and enormous changes that could affect our countryside and rural economy.
We had the hammer blow of the family farm tax and family business tax over a year ago. I pay tribute to the Labour Members who quietly campaigned against those taxes and have achieved some changes, but the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away: although changes were announced just before Christmas, we also saw the arrival of the Government’s animal welfare strategy, a document that could have been written by the non-governmental organisations and animal rights activists themselves, and which contains some potentially extraordinarily damaging measures that could harm farming well into the future.
These are often technical and quite complex matters. I mentioned 1999 because it is very important to remember what happened then. The Government at the time rightly took the view that there should be an end to sow stalls, but instead of phasing them out, they banned them overnight and destroyed 50% of the British pig industry. When we consider animal welfare matters, such as farrowing, it is very important that the Government work with the industry, so that any changes and transitions do not affect our ability to produce fantastic British pork and support our farmers, or affect British food security. There are other measures that need to be discussed, such as the use of CO2 in stunning, another technical matter that needs to be worked through with food processors and abattoir owners to ensure that we do not damage our food security.
There are lots of other things to discuss. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) mentioned the issues with shooting, and the changes to firearms and shotgun certification and licensing. He said that 67,000 people are employed in that industry; there are over 600,000 people engaged in it. It is hugely important to my constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds, and to neighbouring constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). A town like Helmsley brings in around £1.5 million a week from shooting alone. It is very important that we take that into account.
It is important that we mention the sanitary and phytosanitary deal—that wonderful thing that is being trumpeted by the Government and the Liberal Democrats, and for which we sold out our fishing industry for 12 years. It has yet to be negotiated, and farming representatives tell me that it is likely to cost farmers hundreds of millions of pounds, reduce our food production and increase our reliance on imports.
I will always stand up for our farming community and for our rural economy, and I commend the Opposition motion.
Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution. I join her in expressing sympathy for all those who have been affected and I thank all those involved in fighting those fires. This is a cross-governmental issue. Wildfire and fire and rescue services are the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but my hon. Friend will be aware that we have been consulting on ending locational burning to improve moorland resilience to wildfire. We know that restoring peatlands with diverse plant species prevents the over-dominance of heather and molinia, which dry out peat and increase the risk of fire. Frankly, recent wildfires show just how degraded our peatlands have become.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I join the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) in paying tribute to the firefighters, farmers, gamekeepers and everybody who has taken part in fighting the moorland fires in North Yorkshire, just over the border from my constituency. Does the Minister agree about the huge importance of managing moorland? Managed burning of moorland not only improves the ecological status of the moorland, but reduces the threat of wildfire.
Daniel Zeichner
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is why the consultation has been taking place. These are complicated issues, and sometimes controversial, but we all want to get those moorlands into a state where we are not subject to these dreadful fires.