Badger Cull

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

In government we spent £20 million on delivering a vaccine. That contrasts rather unhappily with this Government’s investment. In 2009-10, under Labour, investment in a cattle vaccine was £3.7 million and investment in a badger vaccine was £3.2 million. By 2014-15, that will fall to £2 million for a cattle vaccine and £1.6 million for a badger vaccine. I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about the investment needed in vaccines given that we spent that money. We have delivered the badger vaccine; his Government have cancelled five of our six badger vaccine trials. If they had not been cancelled, we would now be a lot further down the road of understanding how that badger vaccine works in the field.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I want to make some progress.

The cull method—free shooting—is untested. The number of badgers removed may be lower than that in Labour’s RBCT. Nobody has shot a badger legally in the UK since 1973, so it is an untested method. If it happens, it risks making TB worse.

We do not know how much this cull is actually costing the farmers involved, so we rely on the Government’s cost-benefit analysis. Culling makes TB worse by spreading the disease in the first two years. The benefits across the whole culling area appear only after year 3, but in the ring area—the edge of where the cull is carried out—there are never any benefits. Do the farmers whose land lies alongside the cull zones realise that? I think not.

Labour’s culls showed that culling badgers is estimated to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% after nine years—84% of the problem is still there. Sixteen per cent. is the best-case scenario based on the TB rate being twice as high in the cull area as it is in the land outside. However, if background TB rates are constant across the whole area, that benefit reduces to just 12%. Moreover, this is not an absolute reduction; it is a 16% reduction from the trend increase. Therefore, after nine years there will still be more TB around than at the beginning. There is 16% less than there would have been without a cull.

I want to look at how that 16% reduction is achieved. The cull depends on killing at least 70% of badgers in the cull area, yet last year the Secretary of State was about to start the culls without knowing how many badgers needed to be shot. His officials started counting the badgers only in September, just weeks before the cull was due to start. They relied on farmers to count the setts, and that did not work.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I remind her that, as a result of the destruction that the disease is causing in Shropshire, I set up the all-party group on dairy farmers during the previous Parliament. It became one of the largest all-party groups, with a membership of more than 250 MPs, 70 of whom were Labour Members. We all worked constructively on a report that stated the need for a cull. It will be very interesting to see how many of those Labour MPs change their minds this afternoon, but there was a consensus among them at that time that a cull was the only viable option.

[Mary Creagh]

I have not read that report, but today’s report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on a badger vaccination to control TB does not mention culling. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary that a report on bovine TB does not mention—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: TB is found in hedgehogs, cats and dogs, and even sheep. It affects people, usually only those who drink unpasteurised milk. The disease can reach any species, because M. bovis is a species-jumping illness.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Given the devastation caused by the disease in our region and the area neighbouring our county, will my hon. Friend work with me and other neighbouring MPs to convince the Secretary of State that when the trials are successful they should be brought to our region—Herefordshire and Shropshire—as soon as possible?

[Bill Wiggin]

I would make the point that these are pilots. The Opposition have made it clear that they believe they are untested. Well, pilots are by definition untested. Once we have evidence that the proposal is effective, of course we can take informed decisions. There are 300,000 to 500,000 badgers in the UK, and they do well in areas such as our counties, where cattle thrive in some of the most beautiful countryside in the country. Herefordshire is one of those counties. The number of badgers exceeds the number of foxes, and they are most likely to be killed by disease or in road traffic accidents—some 50,000 a year are killed on our roads.

There are valid and worrying arguments about perturbation. The perturbation effect was confirmed by trials that used cage trapping. It is not clear whether it was the trapping or the killing of the trapped badger which caused the perturbation effect. That is a worrying challenge to the argument on vaccination. If perturbation is caused by trapping, vaccinating badgers that may already be infected is likely to be as risky as culling. How can we prove that that is right or wrong without electronic tagging? Badgers have little ears, and would lose an ear tag. I do not think that trimming their fur, which is being done at the moment, will provide the sort of robust scientific evidence that we need.

Despite that concern, I still favour badger vaccination for populations confirmed as healthy, and I would draw the attention of the House to the success of the Dutch in using vaccination to combat foot and mouth disease. We must use vaccination to protect healthy badger populations, particularly those that border infected populations. We know where the disease is not present, as we use cattle as an indicator species. Perhaps that is something the Government can address when they look at the efficacy of culling.

Vaccination costs money, and we spent £90 million on TB control measures in 2010-11, including testing and compensation. Every time a farm breaks down, it costs £34,000. Over the past 10 years, bovine TB has cost the British taxpayer £500 million—the equivalent of Birmingham’s 1,200-bed Queen Elizabeth hospital. If we do nothing and maintain the status quo, allowing the disease to spread once again, over the next 10 years the cost will be £1 billion, which is two 1,200-bed hospitals. Given the financial situation, I think all Members would agree that spending £1 billion on the effects of bovine TB without even trying to cull sick animals would be hard to justify even in the most urban constituencies.

The extremely charming and erudite badger cull opponent, Dr Brian May, asked:

“What would we do if this were our children? We would vaccinate…them.”

EU Council Directive 78/52/EEC explicitly prohibits vaccination against bovine TB in cattle. I therefore urge the Secretary of State not to make us wait until after the referendum in 2017. Surely this is a good reason for leaving the EU, if nothing else. What would be the cost of defying the directive? How much money would be put at risk? What would be lost if the EU banned our cattle exports? What would the French do about our dairy products? [Interruption.] I heard the Minister say, “Quite a lot”—he should tell us how much. Only the Government can tell us so we can have an informed debate. In the meantime, we should go ahead with planning for cattle vaccination.

The Commissioner wrote to the Secretary of State saying that a new vaccine was 10 years away. Ten years would mean £1 billion, or another 1,200-bed hospital. The Secretary of State needs to use every weapon that he can to fight the disease. All cattle have passports, so if we chose to vaccinate we could stamp the passport, “Vaccinated— not for export”. We could use the DIVA test when DEFRA was satisfied that it was proven.

I favour better tests. I received two letters from constituents whose cattle were slaughtered. Those cattle passed the skin test, but they were found to have lesions in more than one organ and were condemned. If they had failed the test, the owners would have received compensation, but because lesions were found they were condemned, and my constituents lost the total value of those cattle. We therefore need better tests. Let us introduce the PCR test that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State championed in opposition, and let us make sure that farmers can choose gamma interferon tests if they want them.

I do not want to see badgers suffer. The Secretary of State used to keep them as pets, and he does not want to see them suffer either. The badger is a much-loved animal, including in Kenneth Grahame’s “The Wind in the Willows”, but unfortunately badgers are a reservoir for TB. Reducing the infected population is the principle that we use for cattle, but which we ignore in wildlife. An experimental pilot cull in the highest-risk areas, with barriers, will prove or disprove whether culling is worth rolling out in other high-risk areas. People should realise that it is a scare tactic even to suggest that the whole badger population is at risk from culling. It is not. Only badgers in the highest-risk areas, where it is thought that one in three badgers has TB, would be culled. The total number at risk would be 5,000—less than 10% of the number of badgers hit by cars every year.

Mr Badger in “The Wind in the Willows” said:

“People come—they stay for a while…they build—and they go. It is their way. But we remain.”

Let us do all that we can to ensure that healthy badgers do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I am very pleased that my Shropshire neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is present. He will know that in 1997, 47 cows were slaughtered in Shropshire as a result of bovine tuberculosis, and that last year the figure was more than 2,000. That increase happened in Shropshire alone, and the misery and devastation it caused to the dairy and livestock industry of our county, which is so dependent on agriculture, cannot be overemphasised.

In 2006, I set up the all-party group on dairy farmers as a result of the crisis that the disease was causing in Shropshire. More than 250 Members of Parliament joined the group, and the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers did an excellent job as our secretariat. I pay tribute to it for all the work it did with farmers up and down the country to ensure that Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs joined the group. We worked together on the basis of cross-party consensus over 10 months. We interviewed experts not just from the United Kingdom but from all over Europe and overseas, and went on delegations to find out how bovine tuberculosis had been eradicated in France and other countries.

We made two recommendations after those 10 months of work. One was for a limited cull of badgers and the other was for a regulator for supermarkets. At the time, we were ridiculed for proposing two things that were deemed completely impossible to achieve. I remember going to see the relevant Labour Minister at the time and was very disappointed at the derision and incredulity with which the two proposals were greeted.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has acted with great courage. I am sure that a lot of civil servants and others will be saying, “This is a very courageous step, Minister.” Of course, there will be protests up and down the country—this is a highly controversial matter—but I pay tribute to him because he has been so courageous. I very much hope that those people who object passionately to this limited cull will conduct their protests in a peaceful way.

One of the most exciting things we have done in Shropshire this year is invite a delegation of cattle dealers, agronomists and farmers from the Bryansk region of Russia. I and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) have worked together to help the Government make sure that Russia lifts the ban on cattle imports that it imposed after the BSE crisis. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has done more than any other Member of Parliament to ensure that that happens. There is such excitement that we can and should be exporting more of our superb agricultural produce overseas. No country produces better dairy products than the United Kingdom, and, of course, the best of those are from Shropshire.

I have to say, in the limited time that I have, that the Minsterley creamery in my constituency and the Müller dairy in north Shropshire employ huge numbers of local constituents in the dairy industry. We must do everything that we can to protect the livelihoods of those constituents and the security of their families and children, because they have worked in the industry for generations. This policy is just one of the tools that the Secretary of State is using to do that.

Finally, the Secretary of State recently received a letter from Mr Lovegrove-Fielden from my constituency, whom I met recently. I very much hope that he reads the letter. It says that if the trials are successful, he should quickly consider implementing the policy in Shropshire because we must do everything possible to protect our Salopian dairy farmers.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman brings a great deal of experience of the sector to the House. I am not convinced that the public will be surprised if a major retailer engages in a particular practice and is named and shamed in a national newspaper or trade magazine. If the adjudicator does their job properly, we would hope there would be no one to name and shame. It will help the system to operate properly if we can use the stick and say that retailers could be hit with financial penalties. If they can be hit with such penalties, naming and shaming become almost irrelevant.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Certainly, when I have spoken with supermarket chief executives I have challenged them. They sometimes take out full-page newspaper adverts to highlight fair trade for third-world growers. Does he agree that we want to get to the stage where supermarkets are highlighting the fair trade they are doing with British suppliers?

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a critical point, but the point is the full plethora of sanctions in the Bill. All we are talking about is what is in the Bill; we are not saying that fines could not exist in the short to medium term at the behest of the Secretary of State, but if he thinks that fines might be required in the future, why not just put them in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

That is a wonderful point, and I think we now have our second candidate for the Committee—or given that helpful comment, perhaps not. The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a conflict of interest. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned the large full-page adverts that supermarkets produce relating to fair trade. Indeed, if it is about advertising revenues, there will be a conflict of interest, and I hope that the adjudicator would take that into account. If fines were included in the Bill, an adjudicator could balance up what would be the best punishment for a particular crime and deal with it in that way. By hamstringing the adjudicator from day one on fines, we are merely pushing down some of those routes by which questions would have to be answered.

Let me run through some of the issues relating to the adjudicator potentially being toothless, which is why we are calling for fines to be available to the adjudicator from day one. We are not the only people who are calling for that. In January 2009, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—the current Minister with responsibility for agriculture and food, who has been chuntering on about fines for the past few minutes—said, when he was an Opposition spokesperson all those many months ago, that there must be “an ombudsman with teeth” to ensure that farmers get a fair deal. I wonder whether he and his colleagues will support our amendments in Committee to give the adjudicator such powers, because they did not support them in the other place. He is not the only one. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said last year:

“I agree with my hon. Friend and other Members that the adjudicator must have real teeth so that they can take action to stop abuses.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 240WH.]

Just this weekend, a host of stakeholders wrote an open letter to The Sunday Telegraph. It is worth my quoting from it, because it touches on the crucial part of the Bill:

“Sir, Having got the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill this far, the government will be scoring an own goal if it denies the supermarket watchdog the one tool that will make it effective: the power to levy fines from the outset. The evidence of supermarkets’ unfair treatment of suppliers—which includes farmers both here and in developing countries—is all too clear. Watering down the bill so that penalties only go as far as ‘naming and shaming’ will not be a sufficient deterrent and the Adjudicator risks failing in its job to hold supermarkets to account.”

That letter was signed by ActionAid UK, the National Farmers Union, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Traidcraft, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Independent Fruit Growers Association, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Friends of the Earth, War on Want, RedOrange and Great Glemham Farms. Clearly, then, there is a great movement to provide for fines in the Bill, and I cannot understand why the Government have not listened to the letter.

We are in danger of creating this toothless tiger—I have “tiger”, but it could be a dog, I suppose. Let us imagine an old-fashioned circus act. Where is the fear in a circus clown putting his head into a tiger’s mouth, only to have his neck viced by the tiger’s gums? There is no way we can put fear into the hearts of the supermarkets with an adjudicator that does not have the power to fine. Providing for fines in the Bill does not mean that fines should be imposed on retailers randomly—I hope there would never have been sufficiently serious breaches to require the invoking of the power—but allowing the adjudicator to have the power easily to hand might influence the retailers’ actions and go some way in preventing serious breeches of the code.

Clause 9 gives the adjudicator the power to fine retailers, subject to permission from the Secretary of State. Even if the adjudicator decided that the power to fine was necessary, several considerable hurdles would have to be jumped. First, the adjudicator, who would be best placed to decide whether fines were appropriate, would have to publish guidance in deciding the amount of financial penalty—a point that goes back to the Minister’s intervention. Secondly, once that had been given to the Secretary of State, he would have to consult stakeholders on the guidance. Finally, a statutory instrument would have to be presented to Parliament and passed by affirmative resolution. This hugely drawn-out process will do nothing to instil much-needed confidence in farmers and small businesses that might have been severely affected by a breach of the code by a retailer that the adjudicator thinks merits a fine.

We must trust the adjudicator to issue remedies fairly. By not providing in the Bill for the power to fine, the Government are in danger of scoring an own gaol, as said in The Sunday Telegraph letter from ActionAid. Indeed—if I may continue with the footballing analogy—a red card could be issued. It would be available to the adjudicator in the case of a penalty, but it would not be in its breast pocket, where it could be issued fast and effectively against the offender if necessary. Essentially, we are saying in the Bill that if the referee wants to issue a red card, he will have to ask the Football Association, after which the FA will consult on its use and then pass a new law to allow it to be used. I much suspect that the match would have finished many months before the decision is made.

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have also said that the power to fine should be provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, in a recent joint statement, the Grocery Market Action Group, ably chaired by the hon. Member for St Ives and made up of 23 organisations from across the farming, international development, environmental and small business lobbies, called on the Government to give the adjudicator the power to levy fines. I ask the Minister, again, why she is not listening to the entire industry when it comes to fines.

I turn to the intermediaries. At the bottom of all this lies the nagging doubt that many of the alleged abuses will not be resolved even by the presence of a perfectly functioning adjudicator, because the problem is in the code itself, not its implementation. Central to this idea is the code’s limited scope—this point has been raised by voices across the sector—as much of the bad practice occurs at the level of intermediaries not covered by the code and therefore the adjudicator. For example, let us imagine that a supermarket has a ready meal supplier, but decides it wants fewer carrots in the ready meal and goes through the proper GSCOP processes to remove carrots. The supermarket can do that legitimately under the code, and that is only right. However, the ready meal supplier will buy those carrots from a carrot supplier, and could therefore dismiss one of its suppliers of carrots or change the terms of the contract without any recall to the groceries code. In that example, nothing would have gone wrong according to the groceries code, so we could see suppliers further down the chain being harmed quite considerably by the decision of an intermediary.

Equally, that binary view of the market seems inappropriate when the supplier is a huge manufacturer of branded goods, such as Unilever, Kraft, Nestlé or Coca-Cola, whose turnover may exceed that of even the retailer. We are protecting the relationship rather than the carrot producer further down the chain. The adjudicator will be required to recommend changes to the code to the Office of Fair Trading, yet the British Retail Consortium claims that the OFT has taken no action to offer feedback on the annual reports that its members have already submitted under GSCOP on their implementation of the code or even to publish them.

Many farmers and growers are currently not covered by the code, as they do not directly supply the 10 largest retailers. Nevertheless, they are often the ultimate victims of unfair behaviour and the transfer of risks and costs. We hope that ensuring that retailers comply with the code will resolve those issues. If, despite the adjudicator’s best efforts, those problems persist, primary producers will continue to struggle to make a fair return for their enterprises and consumers will continue to suffer from the subsequent lack of investment. That is why it is critical that the adjudicator should have the power in the Bill to keep the code live, to enable such issues to be dealt with if the adjudicator deems that to be necessary. May I ask the Minister what consideration she has given to those concerns and whether she will come back to us in Committee with an assessment of the issues affecting intermediaries?

Finally—

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The hon. Gentleman, who appears to be moving towards the end of his speech, mentioned carrots. The British carrot industry is actually doing quite well, but I very much hope that he has spent some time thinking about how the adjudicator will help our British dairy industry, which is on its knees, with many farmers going out of business every month. In the last Parliament I set up the all-party group on dairy farmers in order to fight for them. Our main report suggested that we should have a grocery adjudicator Bill. Will he spend a few moments talking about our dairy farmers?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point, because naming and shaming did not work for the dairy farmers. What worked were blockades and sanctions in getting their points across to the Government. I will perhaps highlight the dairy industry and how the groceries code adjudicator should be able to help, but he makes a critical point about how the Bill could be seen as toothless, because the dairy industry had to blockade and withhold its services to get any action on how the supply chain worked. It neatly follows that the debate needs to be on where the code sits in the legislative framework.

Badger Cull

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I will make a little more progress before giving way again—as you have pointed out, Mr Speaker, this is a heavily oversubscribed debate.

A number of eminent individuals have also spoken out in opposition to the Government’s proposed course of action. Significantly, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, has refused to back the cull. In a letter to The Observer on 14 October, more than 30 scientists wrote that

“the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it… culling badgers as planned is very unlikely to contribute to TB eradication.”

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I rather suspect that in Brighton Pavilion there are few dairy famers, if any, so will she agree to come to Shropshire and spend the day meeting my dairy farmers and the local NFU to hear their perspective on the crisis and how they believe it should be tackled?

[Caroline Lucas]

Even coming from Brighton Pavilion does not stop someone reading the science. I would like the debate to be based on the science, not on emotional calls from the Government Benches. Professor Lord Krebs, who devised the randomised badger cull and is firmly opposed to the cull, has said:

“I have not found any scientists who are experts in population biology in the distribution of infectious diseases in wildlife who think that culling is a good idea… People have cherry-picked certain results to try to get the argument that they want.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

In Shropshire in 1997, 47 cows were slaughtered as a result of bovine TB. Last year, more than 2,000 were slaughtered. There has been a huge increase in the disease in my constituency and throughout Shropshire.

I have spent a lot of time with many of my Shropshire dairy farmers and sometimes, having gone around their farms with them, I have found myself sitting at their kitchen tables, having coffee and talking about the impact of that slaughter on them and their families. I do not mind saying that sometimes we—grown men—have sat around the table and cried, such is the emotion. The impact—not just on them but on their families and, in particular, young children—of whole herds being taken away for slaughter is devastating.

I hope that hon. Members who oppose this action will take the time—I invited the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in good spirit—to come to Shropshire and areas of the country facing this extraordinary crisis, and to meet our constituents and hear the emotion in their pleas for action. Hon. Members would then begin to understand why so many Government Members feel strongly that action must be taken now.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. I stood beside a dairy farmer in my constituency as their herd was loaded for slaughter, and it is an extremely distressing experience, but that is all the more reason to listen to the science and not make the situation worse. It is simply wrong to suggest that that is not what people on both side of the debate are trying to achieve.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Of course, we will be arguing about the science, and both sides feel strongly that their scientific arguments are correct and that they have the correct scientists’ feedback on their side. That will continue throughout the debate.

[Angela Smith]

I echo the comments by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) about how much sympathy we all have for farmers and the dairy industry. We have to deal with this disease. However, the years that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned—1997 and, more recently, 2007 to 2012 were marked by one event that changed the picture of disease in cattle, and that was foot and mouth. Will he comment on the contribution that foot and mouth made to increased cattle movement and the decrease in testing for bovine TB in cattle?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

In the few minutes I have, I would like to focus on my constituents. I am sure that others will take up the hon. Lady’s point.

One of the first things I did when I became a Member of Parliament in 2005 was to form an all-party group on dairy farmers. I did so because of the direct lobbying I received from Mr Stuart Jones of Pontesbury and many of my other dairy farmers, who wanted me to campaign on this issue. More than 190 Members of Parliament joined the all-party group, making it one of the largest in the House of Commons. To my great pleasure, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, joined it—it was the only one he joined in the last Parliament.

We used this caucus of more than 190 Members repeatedly to try to engage with Labour Ministers, and we took the National Farmers Union—many of our farmers came—to meet various DEFRA Ministers and Secretaries of State. I shall not mention all of them, but I am happy to list all the meetings we had; and yet, month after month, year after year, no action was taken, and this disease continued to spread and decimate the industry in our constituencies. A delegation also went to Brussels to meet the European Commission and to Ireland and France to find out what they were doing and how they were coping with bovine TB. We wanted to find out at first hand how the French had managed to eradicate it almost completely, and part of the solution there, as in Ireland and many other EU countries, was a badger cull.

Shropshire MPs have met the Shropshire wildlife trust, whose symbol is a badger. It has more than 8,000 members, making it the largest organisation in our county. The Secretary of State, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and I met the trust just last week, and we are having very effective discussions with it as we argue and debate in a professional and peaceful fashion the best way forward. It is extremely important to keep the dialogue going. I highlighted to the trust the triangle in my constituency between Pontesbury, Westbury and Minsterley, where this disease is getting completely out of control. Very kindly, the trust has agreed to come with me to meet my dairy farmers in that part of Shropshire to hear at first hand the problems they are facing.

I am extremely grateful that we have a Secretary of State from Shropshire who understands the problem and who is also a man of great courage, integrity and honour. My dairy farmers and I can trust him to fulfil the commitment he gave the other day that, despite this pause, next summer we will finally start to tackle this problem and take action for our hard-pressed, long-suffering dairy farmers.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

By the fog. If Members want a technical update, the flight was delayed and then cancelled. There was only one, so sadly I did not get to the Agriculture Council and I did not have a chance to put the very pertinent points that the hon. Lady mentioned. If she looks over the border, she will see that in the Republic of Ireland there is a reactive cull. As I said, the four counties trial showed a 96% reduction in Donegal.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

As a neighbouring Shropshire MP, the Secretary of State will know what devastation bovine TB has caused in Shropshire, with more than 2,000 cattle slaughtered last year alone. Will he give an assurance that if the trials are successful next summer, other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Shropshire, will be able to move forward quickly to a cull?

[Mr Paterson]

I commend my neighbour from Shrewsbury and Atcham for his stalwart support on this matter and for the very public stance that he has taken. The answer is emphatically yes. I want the two pilots to go ahead and to conform to the science. I am confident that they will prove to be safe and efficacious, and that we will see a reduction in TB. That is what we want to see rolled out across the country.

Dairy Industry

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Thomas Docherty]

The House of Commons Commission has urged the catering and retail services to ensure that we operate within the European rules—I am conscious that I am now setting off a whole new avenue for the hon. Gentleman—but perhaps the Minister will set out what steps he will take to ensure that all Departments buy their milk from British farmers.

The issue that we have faced time and again during this dispute is that retailers have argued that the cuts on farm-gate prices were being implemented by the milk processors and not by the retailers. The reality is that, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) mentioned earlier, the downward pressure has come from the supermarket shelves, and that pressure is passed on to the milk processors, who then pass it on to the producers.

We have urged Ministers in the Lords to keep open the option of extending the powers of the groceries code adjudicator. I hope that when the Bill comes to the House of Commons, the Minister will consider talking to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the potential of extending the GCA’s powers if necessary.

In closing, I have a few questions to put to the Minister.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, I hope that he will give us an indication of what the Labour party’s position is with regard to bovine tuberculosis, which of course is the other great threat to many of our dairy farmers.

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not speak for the Labour party; I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will have an opportunity to set out whatever issues he wishes to when he speaks, if he has time to do so.

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak, so I will conclude very briefly by asking the Minister some questions. If the voluntary code does not deliver, will he step in and consider regulatory action? Will he tell us when he expects the code to be published? I understand that it is waiting for clearance from the Office of Fair Trading, but I am sure that he will try to ensure that it is published as soon as possible, so when will that be? What assurance has his Department been given about the full implementation of the voluntary code by all milk processors? As the signatory to the code is Dairy UK and not all the players, how will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ensure that all the processors play fair? When do the Government expect to bring forward a consultation on the dairy package? I would be grateful to him if he gave us an indication of some of those timings. Finally, when will the Government publish the framework that will underpin the establishment of producer organisations?

I am very conscious that a large number of Members wish to speak today; I am sure that this will be an excellent debate; and I commend everyone who is taking part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to the outgoing Minister with responsibility for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice). I had the immense privilege and honour of being his Parliamentary Private Secretary for a year and a half. With his experience and expertise, he was one of the best farming Ministers this country has ever had. His departure is a great loss to the Government.

I set up the all-party group on dairy farmers in 2006, in the previous Parliament, because of the terrible crisis my Shropshire dairy farmers were going through. An important statistic to remember is that in 1997, 47 cows were slaughtered in Shropshire as a result of bovine tuberculosis; last year, that figure was more than 2,000. I repeat those figures: from 47 to more than 2,000. The misery that that disease has caused many of my constituents is appalling. When I set up the all-party group, 170 MPs joined it. Uniquely, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, joined the group. I believe that that was the only all-party group he joined in the previous Parliament.

Our group produced a report in which the two recommendations were that we needed a limited cull of badgers and a supermarket regulator. At the time, we were told that it would be impossible to get either. We pleaded with the Labour Government to introduce a regulator and to take action on bovine tuberculosis. Our pleas fell on deaf ears. I am therefore slightly bemused to hear Labour MPs calling for us to support their actions on an adjudicator, because we pleaded on bended knee for years and no action was taken. One reason why the situation is so perilous at the moment is the inactivity of the previous Labour Government.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the point about a supermarket or groceries code adjudicator, I have been chair of the Grocery Market Action Group for the past six years. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it was only just before the 2010 general election that we had agreement from all three main parties that an adjudicator or ombudsman should be put in place.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading proponents of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. I look forward to working with him to get that proposed legislation through Parliament.

I want other hon. Members to be able to speak, so I will just briefly say that I have sat with dairy farmers at their kitchen tables, and seen those grown men burst into tears. The emotion involved in seeing their herds slaughtered is profound. I hope to hear from the Minister what steps the Government will take to address this appalling issue.

I will write to the Minister specifically with regard to a constituent of mine, Mr Jones of Pontsbury, who recently lost a lot of his herd. He has been given new figures on compensation that are much lower than he thought. He is worried that he will not have enough money to replace the cows he has had to send to slaughter. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that case.

I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) regarding exports. I feel passionately about exports to north Africa and the middle east. Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are full of Dutch and Danish cheeses, yoghurts and other dairy products, yet there are none from the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will work closely with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to try to help the dairy sector find new markets in those countries.

Finally, I would like to put on the record that we now have a new Waitrose supermarket in Shrewsbury—the first one has just opened. My daughter and I go every Saturday to Waitrose, because it is the supermarket that pays most to dairy farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am absolutely delighted that so many Members have chosen to take part in this debate. I am a new Member—I was elected just two and a half years ago—and during the time that I have been here, I have never seen such a well-attended Westminster Hall debate. It speaks volumes about how important the plight of the dairy industry is to Parliament. The supermarkets and processors must be left in no doubt how seriously we intend to take the issue. The phrase was used at one point that journalists were drinking in the last chance saloon. I suggest that the supermarkets and processors are drinking in the last chance milk bar, because I think that we all recognise how serious the issue is. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing the debate.

I speak today to represent my farmers in Burton and Uttoxeter, who played a little part in getting us where we are today. Many Members will know that the SOS dairy campaign kicked off with a meeting in Staffordshire. The brainwave for that meeting came around a farmer’s kitchen table in my constituency with Mr David Brookes, Mr Philip Smith and Mr Trevor Beech from the NFU. They came up with the idea of being more vocal and taking the campaign forward. When they rang me with their original idea, I had to tell them that I did not think that it would work. They said that they wanted to milk a cow in Downing street to make their case. I had to dissuade them from doing so, but I think that we all recognise how important the SOS dairy campaign has been in uniting farmers.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

One of the best campaigns over the past few years has been from the Women’s Institute, whose work I acknowledge. WI members came from all over the country, and one of them sat in a bathtub in a bikini and had milk poured all over her. That got a lot of publicity for the campaign.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend. I am left with a marvellous image of him up to the navel in milk. I know that he has done his best to support dairy farmers in his constituency.

We got to this point because dairy farmers felt that they had no choice. They were faced with a further 2p cut in their prices, and that was a cut too far. They would not have been able to survive. Dairy farming would not have been sustainable at that level. It is almost unique that having had the 2.5p reinstated in many cases, many dairy farmers are still only meeting the cost of production. In what other industry do we expect producers to sell their product at the cost of production? We do not say to Toyota that we want to buy a Prius at the cost of production or to Apple that we want to buy the iPhone 5 at the cost of production, yet we expect our dairy farmers to survive by selling their product at the cost of production. That is absolutely unsustainable, which is why it is so important that we, as Parliament and as a society, get behind our dairy farmers. If we do not, we will lose the industry for ever.

We need to be aware of why we got ourselves in this situation: it was a case of supermarkets using milk to tempt people in, just as they have with my other beloved product, beer. They have driven down the price, and milk processors, to chase supermarket contracts, have put pressure downwards on our farmers to the point at which the pips are beginning to squeak.

I shall make a few quick points to close. First, we all recognise that more than 90% of the milk for the liquid market is produced here in the UK, but just a third of the butter and half the cheese products on our supermarket shelves are produced from British milk. We must do more to get into that very lucrative market, which could save our dairy industry. Secondly, we have heard a lot about the groceries code adjudicator and the idea that it must have teeth. The industry is setting so much store by what the groceries code adjudicator can deliver in future, and we must make sure that we arm it with the tools that it needs to do its job. Thirdly, some £5 million has been made available to dairy farmers under the rural economy grant. There are rumours and concerns among farmers in my constituency that, although that money would help them to survive, not all of it will reach dairy farmers, so I would be grateful for clarification on how the scheme will operate.

We recognise that the land that we live in is green and pleasant because it is farmed and because our farmers make such a massive contribution. [Interruption.] The phrase “for whom the bell tolls” comes to mind. It tolls now not only for me, but for our dairy industry, and it is imperative that we, as Parliament and as a society, offer a lifeline and support to the great British dairy industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, although I must confess that, with the new technology here, this debate has sometimes felt as though we were participating in “Just a Minute”.

I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing this debate. The enthusiasm of so many Members shows how important the issue is to so many of us and, most importantly, to the farmers in our communities. I welcome the new Minister, who has probably had to spend a lot of time absorbing all this new information. Hearing us today will, I hope, reinforce how important the issue is to our farmers. I want to put on the record my tribute to my hon. Friend—now my right hon. Friend—the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) for his tireless work in opposition before he became a Minister, and also as a Minister. He helped many of us and he helped many farmers.

In preparing for this debate, I took a look at that well-known agricultural journal—“Lonely Planet”. Its guide to Cheshire states, obviously authoritatively, that the

“largely agricultural Cheshire is a very black-and-white kind of place—if you focus on the genuine half-timbered Tudor farmhouses and the Friesian cows that graze in the fields around them.”

Cheshire is great dairy country. We have heard about other counties, but Cheshire is supreme as far as I am concerned. [Interruption.] Did my hon. Friend say Cheshire?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Shropshire.

[David Rutley]

Okay, fine.

From speaking to my local farmers’ forum, our local NFU branch, it is clear that farmers are facing extremely challenging times. It is worth while pausing on the degree of consolidation that they have gone through. According to DairyCo figures, there are 609 farmers in dairying in Cheshire, but just 10 years ago there were nearly double that number—1,007. That amazing change is because of the extreme challenges that they are going through. Of course, that is due to the power of the supermarkets, as we have heard, and to the fact that the cost of production is going up, while others have mentioned broadband—many of us are campaigning for improved broadband services in rural areas—and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has made an important point about TB. Those are all huge challenges for our farmers and for our rural communities that depend on farmers’ well-being, so we of course want to support them.

It is also important to say that farmers have responded to such conditions. They have not sat back; they have faced into these headwinds. Yields are up; farmers have adopted innovative farming methods; they have added value to their milk; and they have diversified. Just look at Blaze farm in Wildboarclough, with its world famous Hilly Billy ice cream—it has an extraordinary taste. Blaze farm now also has ceramic pottery painting and even hosts wedding receptions. That is diversification: farmers are facing into these headwinds and responding to market pressures. They do not want to defy the laws of gravity or the laws of the market. When I speak to farmers in Gawsworth and Siddington, and such great places, they want to be able to compete on a level playing field, in a fair market with fair prices.

Many of us attended the protest at Westminster and, with 2,000 farmers there, it was clear that they need action. I shall summarise my words quickly, because I want the Minister to be able to reply. It is good that processors and retailers have responded—keep the pressure on. The voluntary code is incredibly important, and the fact that farmers can now give 30 days’ notice and terminate contracts with three months’ notice is vital. It is amazing that that has not been the case before. Let us ensure that, like the groceries adjudicator, the code has teeth. I pay tribute to colleagues and to the NFU for their hard-fought campaigns. I have said enough. We need to hear from the Minister. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for securing this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. I will return to that important point shortly; the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) raised it earlier, too. It is absolutely right that the Welsh Government are already considering what will happen if the code does not work. I will raise the point with the Minister, too, because we need to ensure that a discussion takes place across the UK about having an approach that, if it is not universal, respects both devolution and the fact that we need to work on behalf of all our farmers—not only farmers in the Principality, but right across the nation.

I say to farmers who may be tempted to pause for breath because they think that the summer storm is now passing that they should not do so. I say to them, “Organise yourselves; invest in producer organisations and in the value of the raw product, and do it now. And keep the pressure on us as parliamentarians and on the Government to deliver, as the groceries code adjudicator comes to the House.”

One of the last acts of the former Minister was to sign off on a voluntary code for best practice between milk processors and suppliers. That was good, and the code has been broadly welcomed. However, as night follows day, or in this case—please excuse my pun—as knighthood followed that day, the announcement was welcomed but with some caution. The chairman of the National Farmers Union, Peter Kendall, said that although the announcement

“gave some hope for the long term, it did not solve the dairy farming issues of today”.

So we must keep up the pressure to ensure that those processors that are not paying a fair price announce—as we have heard today—that they are rescinding their former announcements. Peter Kendall went on to say:

“This agreement will give us the architecture we need to make sure that we don’t end up with the same dysfunctional markets that are responsible for the dairy crisis we have today”.

We now have the architecture there in front of us, as long as we can make it work.

Let me make it absolutely clear that Labour supports the voluntary agreement if it can be made to work and once the legal niceties have been ironed out, but we also seek assurances from the Minister that the Government do not rule out additional measures, including legislation, should they prove necessary.

We are not alone in seeking that assurance, as the Minister has already heard today. Conservative parliamentarians—including the hon. Members for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Tiverton and Honiton, who have spoken in this debate, and many others who have spoken elsewhere—have queued up to express caution. As I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife a moment ago, that does not sound like the party of regulatory bonfires. This must be one of those good bits of regulation that some people talk about, while others jeer at the very idea.

I will express one word of caution to the Minister, to urge him not to rush headlong down the Stalinist end of the spectrum of views on this issue. Such views have been expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset, who has stated:

“There is no way it”—

the voluntary code—

“is going to work—it is just another rather sad red herring—it has been tried I don’t know how many times and it is always a disaster”.

He says that the code, which the Government support, is “nowhere near sufficient” and that Parliament needs to set a minimum price for

“a strategic resource like milk.”

I urge the new Minister to avoid capitulating to the old, central, statist control-and-command tendency in the Conservative party—next thing he will be arguing for a price set at a European level. Give the voluntary agreement some time to work, but as those in the less red-in-tooth-and-claw tendency of the rural Conservative party argue, keep the legislation ready to hand in case it is needed. Alternatively, as the Minister’s own Liberal Democrat party president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), has said, although the voluntary code is fine for now, the Government must

“commit to back that up with legislation if needed.”

That point has been made consistently today by many MPs from all parties.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he is running out of time, but I hope that he will not finish speaking without giving an up-to-date explanation of the Labour party’s views on a limited cull of badgers, following the decision of the courts.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I will try, but I might well run out of time. We need another debate, and following that decision, I suspect that we will have one on that matter in the near future. I will try to get to the issue. I want to draw on some of the points that have already been raised.

I seek assurance from the Minister that he will keep the voluntary agreement under extremely close scrutiny, that he will report back to Parliament on its operation with genuine urgency and that legislation is being kept as an option. I assume that he will be open—more open, in fact, than his predecessor—to the suggestion that the groceries code adjudicator should be given a few more teeth than the Government seemed willing to countenance formerly. In fact, I am confident that he will want to do an about-turn, because he is rightly an openly professed friend to good sense, to farmers, to a healthy and prosperous supply chain and, by default, to the position that is being expanded upon today. There is cross-party consensus; let me explain.

The new Minister, not without some background or expertise in the farming and food sector, including in dairy production, is on record as saying that he favours

“an ombudsman with teeth, who can deal with the iniquities of the food supply chain”—[Official Report, 20 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 165WH.]

He said that the sooner that was established the better. We note the phrase “with teeth”, to which I will return in future debates.

Today, we particularly note the reference to the food supply chain. In 2009, the Minister said, with wisdom and foresight, that we need

“a sustainable price that allows our producers to get a return on their investment in milk”.—[Official Report, 18 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 501.]

He also talked about

“a regulator who will be able to regulate the whole supply chain effectively, and ensure that the relationships are fair and transparent”.—[Official Report, 20 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 165WH.]

That refers not to a limited part of the supply chain, such as a direct link between retailers and suppliers, but to the whole of it, which would include intermediaries such as milk processors. However, that is not what the Government propose in the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. Now that he is Minister in charge—the man with the levers of power who will stamp his own authority on the Department—I know that he will want to amend the Bill in line with the proposals.

I have run out of time. We will have to debate the matter again. I welcome the new Minister, and I hope that he can confirm that his imprint will now be on the proposals for the groceries code adjudicator.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

There is some debate about the Under-Secretary of State’s hosepipe and whether it was left on. We know that the hosepipe ban has prompted—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Misleading the House!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) should not accuse another Member of misleading the House. That is improper. I say to him in all charity and kindness that, notwithstanding his great abilities and track record, in his capacity as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister his role is to fetch and carry notes, and to nod as required; it is not to shout and heckle from a sedentary position. He will remain silent.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. Before we go any further, the hon. Gentleman should immediately withdraw the suggestion or allegation that anyone has misled the House.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

[Mary Creagh]

That is the first time that I have been accused of misleading the House when I have described something as a matter of debate.

The hosepipe ban has prompted a borehole boom. Taking from the groundwater supply affects everyone, because that is the water that fills the reservoirs, rivers and aquifers used by the public mains water supply. The Secretary of State’s water White Paper that was published in December—her definition of “autumn” is slightly unusual—astonished the water industry, because it proposed delaying the reform of water abstraction until 2027. What plans does she have in the meantime to tackle unsustainable water use by the few to preserve drinking water supplies for the many?

Common Fisheries Policy

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I welcome this debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for securing it. It provides an opportunity to review the progress and speed of CFP reform, a subject in which many people across the country, and not just in coastal constituencies, are extremely interested.

My initial thought was to start with an apology for being parochial, as my main objective is to promote the interests of the under-10 metre fleet and local fishermen fishing out of Lowestoft in my constituency. I then thought again, however, and concluded that there is no need for an apology because local fishermen, fishing sustainably, are a very important part of the solution. They are best placed to help manage fisheries sensibly and responsibly and to promote what is an important part of the economy in coastal communities.

CFP reform is long overdue, and it is right that this issue is now centre stage and that there have been a number of debates on it during the first two years of this Parliament. A number of groups and people are responsible for raising the profile of the issue, but I shall single out four. The first is the Minister, who may represent a constituency as far from the coast as one can get, but who has approached his task with determination, sincerity and understanding. The second is Maria Damanaki, whose approach has, in many respects, been a welcome breath of fresh air in the corridors of Brussels. She understands the problems and has come up with proposals, which, although they may need some amendment, provide a foundation stone on which reform can take place. The third is the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

The exemplary chairmanship.

[Peter Aldous]

The exemplary chairmanship, indeed. The Committee has now carried out two inquiries and has published two detailed reports setting out the challenges that need to be tackled. My fourth mention goes to the fourth estate, in the form of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. He has brought the scandals and obscenities of the CFP into the nation’s living rooms. He has reached the parts that politicians today cannot reach on their own.

The stage has now been set. It is accepted that the system is broken and that it has failed both fish and fishermen alike. We now need to press ahead with putting a new system in place. That will not be easy, as there are those with vested interests, such as other countries in the EU and those who hold quotas and do not fish, who will resist reform.

As the motion sets out, there is a need to move from a centralised, bureaucratic decision-making system to decentralised arrangements that respond to the needs of local fisheries and local communities. If we go on as we are now, fishing communities around the country, such as the community in my constituency, which is in any case a very pale shadow of its former self—

Common Agricultural Policy

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. Had I been at his side, I would perhaps have advised him rather differently, but I was never at Tony Blair’s side, and he never consulted me on my views.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

That was his undoing.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. I do not flatter myself, but a bit of advice here and there might have been helpful.

The Government’s response makes important points, including a call for greater emphasis on subsidiarity. If subsidiarity means that more decisions will be made at national level within the European Union, it is a good thing. We had a debate about it in the Chamber the other day. I think that the rest of the European Union regards it as a decoration, but we take it seriously, and we want more things decided at national level. The Government urge more regional flexibility. The ultimate regional flexibility is for agricultural subsidy and policy to be decided at national level. That is a sensible way forward too.

The report mentions room for savings. The Government say that CAP expenditure should be cut substantially, and I tend to take the Government’s side. I hope that we will not take a “softly, softly” approach to the CAP, that the Government will continue to take a strong line and that ultimately, the CAP will be abolished and replaced by more sensible arrangements based at national level.

Earlier in the debate, a point was raised about genuine farmers. Quite a high proportion of farmers in continental Europe, particularly in wealthy countries such as Germany, use farming as a secondary source of income. They are solicitors, doctors, factory workers or whatever, but they have a small market garden and receive subsidies to buy tractors and so on, and that has been going on for decades. Such people are not genuine farmers, but they get a bit of extra cash from growing a few vegetables and receiving a subsidy from the European Union. That is not farming and we ought to take such matters seriously.

There is, of course, still a degree of corruption although it is perhaps not as bad as it was. I remember hearing about a beef producer who lived in a tower block in Turin, although I do not know how many cows would have fitted on the grass outside. That was some years ago, but there is scope for corruption and if national Governments have to subsidise the system, they will take such matters more seriously. They will ensure that people are genuine farmers and they will try to eliminate corruption so that every penny, cent, or euro is spent more sensibly and is better targeted. In that way, the agricultural industry across Europe will be better for everyone at both nation state level, and collectively.

Mauritania (Fishing Agreement)

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheryll Murray]

There will be €1 million a year to support the parc national du banc d’Arguin, a national park. Licence fees costing an estimated €15 million are paid by ship owners to Brussels. The agreement with Mauritania is by far the most expensive and important for member states such as Spain, which is already moving to negotiate a bilateral agreement if the EU negotiations fail.

The fleet can be broken down into two sections, the industrial and the artisanal. The industrial fleet is made up of a variety of vessels targeting various stocks. A few Scottish and Irish vessels catch pelagic stocks—mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and sardinella. Sardinella are bonier and larger than sardines, and are mainly sold to the African market. Those vessels pair trawl, and they are fitted with saltwater tanks to store the fish, similar to a vivier tank in a crabber. The catch is trans-shipped to factory ships, and one Norwegian factory ship in the area is called the Ocean Fresh.

Factory ships and pair trawls are permitted by derogation from Mauritanian fisheries law. The sector is permitted a catch of 15,000 gross tonnes a month, to be averaged over the year. Dutch freezer trawlers catch pelagic stocks, and the catch is frozen on board. There are 17 licences, for a reference tonnage of 250,000 tonnes. There are 32 licences for 13,950 gross tonnes of cephalopods—species such as octopus and squid. Spain holds 24 of those licences and also catches tropical round fish and white fish, working in competition with the artisanal sector. Other licences are issued, mainly to Spain, for different fishing methods and species.

The artisanal fleet comprises mainly pirogues, constructed sometimes from laid wooden planks but increasingly from aluminium. Those boats operate with an outboard motor, and many are crewed by Senegalese fishermen. The crews operate with only a satellite or mobile telephone for communication, and they often have no navigation lights on their vessel and no VHF radio.

The Mauritanian Government have drawn up a development plan for the artisanal fisheries. The pirogues fish for cephalopods using pots or traps, and when shoals of tropical round fish, white fish and sardinella come close to the shore, the pirogues fish for them with nets. Most of the artisanal catch is landed locally in the port of Nouadhibou, where there is a quay.

As was pointed out in the report produced following the visit by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Just honourable, not right honourable.

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend's report pointed out that landing facilities are sparse, with just one small factory that can take 100 tonnes of mixed pelagic fish. I know that he would be pleased to confirm that, but he is prevented from speaking on the matter owing to his position as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister. His report makes the following observations:

“The fish are either auctioned in open air for the local market or auctioned in the purpose built facility with chilled storage units to buyers that deal with European fish and seafood firms. The operation here was of a reasonably efficient standard, however there was no large scale refrigeration available, meaning the fish were left out in the 30 plus degree heat.

There was one small room where a refrigerator from above was creating ice for use with some of the fish stocks, however the scale was not sufficient to deal with the volume of catches of different fish species, which were as a result liable to lose freshness and therefore value as a consequence.

In addition to the lack of refrigeration, there was also an absence of any other automated processing of any kind.

The port was littered with rudimentary stalls that ranged from people gutting and de-scaling fish, to making various broths and dishes with the catches. There were also basic sheds which sold various supplementary goods for the fish, as well as maintenance sheds for the boats and port workers.”

The current EU fisheries partnership agreement contains several promises. Some have been honoured, but others have not. Annex IV of the current protocol makes specific promises for port facility improvements. First, on progress on the refurbishment of the port of Nouadhibou, I understand that some work is being carried out, with the contract awarded to a Spanish contractor. Secondly, progress was to be made on refurbishing and extending the non-industrial fishing port of Nouadhibou. Thirdly, a number of measures were to be carried out to bring the fish market into line with standards. Fourthly, progress on the creation of landing stages for non-industrial fisheries was promised. Finally, a number of wrecks were to be removed from the Nouadhibou area.

Many shipwrecks have been removed, financed by the EU, and the contract was awarded to a Dutch contractor. However, I understand that there has been no progress on improving the artisanal side of the ports of Nouadhibou or Nouakchott. The three other landing piers to spread the artisanal sector more evenly along the coast have not been provided.

The joint motion for a resolution by the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 confirms that. The preamble states:

“owing to the scant development of the fisheries sector in Mauritania, including the lack of significant landing ports outside Nouadhibou, the country is being deprived of the added value it would obtain, if it were exploiting its fishery resources itself (including processing and sales)”.

The resolution continues:

“as envisaged in Article 6(3) of the current protocol, the EU should support the fastest possible construction of adequate facilities for landing fish along Mauritania’s central and southern coastlines, including—but not limited to—Nouakchott, so that fish caught in Mauritanian waters can be landed at national ports rather than outside the country, as is often the case at present; this will increase local fish consumption and support local employment”.

Talks between the EU and Mauritania collapsed last December according to Euronews, which reports that a negotiator from the west African country said that the two sides failed to make an arrangement regarding money. For far too long, EU bilateral agreements and the successor fisheries partnership agreements have failed both conservation and the local fisheries sector of the host nation.

I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make representations to the European Commission and fisheries Ministers from other member states, calling for the inclusion of the European Parliament’s recommendation in any future FPA with Mauritania. That should include: delivery of all promised port facilities; a requirement to land all catches from EU vessels, including pelagic and cephalopod, in Mauritania; and support for the artisanal fleet, including education about fishing practice, management, safety equipment and marketing advice.

Will my hon. Friend also investigate, with all parties at UK, EU and Mauritanian Government level, the possibility of helping create a sustainable, self-supporting fishing industry in Mauritania? That could be through the formation of a fish producer organisation or a non-governmental organisation similar to the Sea Fish Industry Authority. In the UK, both those organisations are funded by a levy. Such a levy would be easy to apply if all catches were landed in Mauritania. It would provide the financial means for marketing, management and safety training to the local industry among other things, and could allow Mauritanian fisheries to become self-supporting and sustainable, thereby eradicating the need to rely on handouts of aid from the EU or Government sources, and boosting the Mauritanian economy. Most importantly, it could provide the means for scientific data collection and ensure that those rich waters are not plundered by large third country vessels to a level where the fish stocks they contain fall below the safe biological limits. The EU has a responsibility to ensure that fisheries agreements do not harm nations such as Mauritania.

In conclusion, I should like to describe disgraceful behaviour that has taken place off west Africa, as highlighted by the European Environmental Justice Foundation. Fish caught by pirate vessels were trans-shipped to a larger factory ship—the Seta—before being landed in Las Palmas. The EU confiscated the catch under the recent regulation concerning illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Some four months later, claiming a discrepancy in translation, the Spanish Government released the catch, allowing the pirates to sell it and receive the income. Will my hon. Friend the Minister investigate that matter with both the Commission and the Spanish Government?

Fishing Quotas

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Amess]

I will call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend, and I know that I speak for everyone in wishing his father a return to rude health. He must have read my speech, where I have used the expression “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”. I agree completely. The issue centres around what I believe is a complete misuse of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Worryingly, those who speak out against the MMO seem to be dealt with the most severely. That is totally unacceptable.

I will personalise the issue by talking about a constituent of mine whom I regard as a friend. His court hearing was held on Christmas eve, with all the stress that that involves, and he was recently fined £400,000. Although I was not there to hear the judge’s summing up—I am not criticising the judge; he was only interpreting the law as it stands—he apparently said that if not for my constituent’s references, the fine could have been as much as £600,000. The fine was for bureaucratic offences relating to his catch, the majority of which concerned offences relating to sales notes.

The gentleman to whom I am referring is Paul Gilson. Like generations of his family before him, he has fished the waters of Leigh-on-Sea since childhood. He is a highly respected member of the local community. In the late 1990s, I went with him, the gentleman who was then running my office, Lionel Altman, and the then Member of Parliament Bob Spink to do battle with the famous fisheries commissioner Emma Bonino. It was game, set and match to the Paul Gilson contingent. He is skipper of the historic boat Endeavour, which I am delighted to tell the House will be travelling in the flotilla for Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. A seat has been reserved on the boat for me, but as I suffer from seasickness, I will be giving the opportunity to someone else, however flat the River Thames is on that day.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Take pills.

[Mr Amess]

Unfortunately, pills do not work with me.

Paul Gilson is so highly thought of in Southend that he was awarded the freedom of the borough, which says everything about him. He is an honest, hard-working man, and such a sentence is an outrage, especially given that two other recent sales note offences received sentences of £3,500 and £6,000. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on that or whether the sentence should have been appealed, but how can two people be given sentences of £3,500 and £6,000 when Mr Gilson was given a sentence of £400,000? That is absolutely not acceptable. It is a coincidence that if someone is a critic of the MMO, they seem to be dealt with particularly harshly.

I am not denying that if an offence has been committed, a punishment should be given. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said earlier, this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The punishment should fit the crime. The 2002 Act, under the right circumstances, is an effective deterrent, but Paul Gilson is neither a gangster nor a drug dealer. The judge even conceded that there was no evidence at all to suggest that Mr Gilson had enjoyed a lavish lifestyle—indeed, if he had done so, no doubt I, as a friend, would have expected to have benefited from it to an extent—or had been motivated in any sense by greed. There is clearly an abuse of the 2002 Act by the MMO, and Paul Gilson is not the only example.

A number of colleagues have sent me briefings on the matter. In particular, three fishermen who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) will appear before Colchester magistrates court on 29 February—obviously, I will not go into the details, as the case is before the courts and the Minister cannot comment on it. Apparently, in a similar case, while a judge recommended a fine of £2,000, the MMO pushed for a prosecution, again under the 2002 Act, to the tune of £156,000. That is absolutely outrageous.

A fisherman from a historic fishing town is being harassed at every opportunity, while three men from the Colchester area are about to appear in court charged with similar offences, and they fear for their livelihood. That is simply vindictiveness beyond belief and a serious waste of taxpayers’ money. As we found out only too well with the Harry Redknapp trial, which cost about £8 million, the money is all coming from the public purse. Money should not be wasted in criminal proceedings unnecessarily, and the case is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Departments are supposed to be making significant cuts, and I respectfully ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on that. Money is being wasted in the pursuit of small-scale fishermen, largely guilty of nothing more than omissions in paperwork. My goodness, if I was to be looked at by how some of my paperwork is dealt with, no doubt I would have something to answer for, so I have tremendous sympathy for Paul Gilson and the other small fishermen.

The problems run deeper. The whole issue with the cases of Mr Gilson and others like him results from mismanagement in the industry and archaic, impractical laws regarding quotas, which my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) has brought to the attention of the House. I have been reliably informed that fishermen are losing out on their catches. Fish are being left uncaught but are not being replenished in the quotas for the following year. For example, Dover sole and skate in the North sea are being under-caught by hundreds of tons. There is also inconsistent implementation of quotas in the industry.

Two excellent articles appeared in The Times on 14 February. One of them is titled, “All at sea: historic fleet that can’t catch its own cod”, and I refer to my hon. Friend the Minister the circumstances of the Hastings fishing fleet. The other article was about a cartel on fishing quotas. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who is the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that it was astounding that the Government did not know who owned the quotas that they handed out, while my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) described it as an absolute scandal.

The current system of quota allocation has resulted in fishermen with boats less than 10 metres long being denied access to the seas. Those boats comprise 85% of the UK fleet, yet receive only 4% of the annual quota. That just cannot be acceptable. If owners of smaller boats want a share of the quota, they usually have to rent it, but many cannot afford the price demanded. They claim, rightly, that the system forces them to discard tonnes of fish.

Government figures suggest that larger boats are fishing less than a third of their quota and renting more than half to smaller vessels. That leaves up to a fifth of quotas left uncaught. Why are they not passed on to the struggling under-10s, or at least replenished in the pot? The system forces smaller boat owners to discard tonnes of fish to comply with regulations. Such practice is ludicrous and wasteful.

I read recently about the privatisation of the seas, whereby private producer organisations manipulate the market to boost their profits, despite being given 90% of quotas for free. Those organisations are on the verge of securing personal control of Britain’s fishing rights. Worryingly, it has been confirmed that the Government do not know, as I have already said, who is profiting from the arrangement—an admission echoed by the MMO. The quota cartel hits the under-10-metre boats particularly hard, as I have mentioned. It leaves men and women struggling to make a living. It is well to remember that they are fishermen, not bureaucrats, and it is madness that they spend as much time doing paperwork as they do fishing.

All that is killing our historic fishing industry, overseen by an apparently vindictive organisation that has no experience or understanding of the industry. Fishermen are rapidly and quite rightly losing faith in the MMO. Add on top of that the absurd, restrictive laws on quotas and the anonymous cartel that manipulates the markets for its own gain and it is easy to see the terrible state the under-10-metre fishing industry finds itself in.

Fishing is an art as old as man itself. It has survived everything that mother nature can throw at it, but it seems that it might just be defeated by our own ludicrous legislation and pointless policy-making. Something has to be done, to help not only my constituent Paul Gilson, but the constituents of all Members present and in the rest of the House.