Fly-Grazing of Horses

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) on his contribution. This is a huge issue of not only welfare—bordering on criminality—but antisocial behaviour. We need to look at both aspects if we are to come up with a solution.

I first came to terms with the subject when a constituent came to me in despair, having found a number of horses in a field that she owned and been told by the local authority that there was nothing she could do to remove the horses; that there was no way of identifying whose they were; and, what was more, that she was now liable for the welfare of the animals, with third-party liability should anyone be injured crossing her land on which the horses now resided. She was quite rightly extremely upset that that should be the case. I looked into it further and found that it was not an isolated problem, even in my own area—I was told, anecdotally, that one gentleman owns 80 horses, but not one square foot of land on which to graze them, so was using everyone else’s land—and throughout the country.

As has been suggested, the situation has been exacerbated by what to some extent has been a crisis in horse ownership. The recent difficulties in the economy have meant that an awful lot of people who bought horses with the firm intention of looking after them properly now find that they are unable to do so, so a lot more horses and ponies are either abandoned or sold cheaply than would normally be the case. Had I any doubts about that, they would have been dispelled by visiting the Glenda Spooner farm in my constituency, in Kingsdon, near Somerton. It is run by World Horse Welfare, which has already been mentioned and does a superb job of looking after abandoned animals and getting them back into shape so that they can be rehomed. I applaud its work.

I was trying to address the issue when I was in the Minister’s position, and it is not without its complications—I will not pretend otherwise. It boils down to a number of clear areas in which the Government could perhaps have an effect. First, on intervention, the Government can help to prevent animals from entering the stream, as it were, by supporting horse charities and perhaps by considering what they can do directly to help people who get into difficulties to find a new home for their horses.

Secondly—a lot of the debate will be about this—there is the possibility of new powers. I discussed that at length with the Home Office, which assured me many times that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill would be capable of remedying the nuisance. Potentially it will be, through the injunctions in the Bill and community protection orders, but we need guidance to be issued to local authorities and others as to how they can use the powers in the Bill to provide help in the area we are discussing. I hope the Minister will help me with that. Failing that, we need to look at the Welsh proposals. I spoke to Alun Davies, the Minister in Wales, some months ago about the subject, because I knew that he was working on his proposals. What is being suggested in Wales—providing a range of disposals to local authorities and others—seems to have an awful lot of merit.

Thirdly, I want us to consider liability, which I remember discussing many years ago during consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, when it became clear that people had an absolute liability for animals on their land. That cannot be right. If it is not their animal, they did not ask for it to be there and they do not want it to be there, how on earth can they be liable for its actions? Yet that is the situation in law.

Lastly, we need to deal with identification. Microchipping needs to be enforced, of course, but that applies only to horses under four years old. There is a misconception about the national equine database, which was abolished by my predecessor, in that it did not provide traceability. We need a hugely better passporting system that ensures that we can trace a horse back to its owner. Serious discussion was going on with the Irish and French Governments on the issue, and I wonder whether the Minister can bring us up to date on where precisely we are.

I wish to raise a final, not uncontroversial, issue, which I remember discussing with the Irish Agriculture Minister, Simon Coveney. I am not betraying any confidence, because he has since discussed it with his Select Committee in the Dail, but he told me about the possibility of widening hugely the euthanising of horses in the Republic of Ireland, because of the overpopulation. We have to give serious consideration to that. No one wants to kill horses, any more than anything else, but if we have huge overpopulation, we will never get to grips with the welfare issues. We first have to reduce the population, bringing it back to the sort of level where we can find enough good, careful and sensible owners to look after the horses.

Gangmasters Licensing Authority

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

Today I am announcing a triennial review of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

The GLA was set up in 2005 to protect workers from exploitation. Since that time the organisation has been subject to a number of reviews, most recently through the employment theme of the Government’s red tape challenge process. Through previous reviews the Government have determined that the role of the GLA remains important and that operating as an NDPB is an appropriate structure for its delivery. This triennial review provides an opportunity to examine and confirm those conclusions where appropriate and to focus on ensuring that the governance arrangements of GLA are as effective as possible, in line with best practice for public bodies.

This review will be conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing non-departmental public bodies. The review will be carried out in an open and transparent way and interested stakeholders will be given the opportunity to feed in their views. I will announce the findings of the review later in 2013-14.

Further information, including the terms of reference for the review, is available on the Government website.

National Forest Company

David Heath Excerpts

Friday 12th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

Today I am announcing a triennial review of the National Forest Company. The National Forest Company was set up in 1995 to oversee the creation of the National Forest—a multi-purpose forest across 200 square miles of the midlands.

Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

This review will be conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing non-departmental public bodies. The review will be carried out in an open and transparent way and interested stakeholders will be given the opportunity to feed in their views. I will announce the findings of the review later in the year.

Further information on the review is available on the Government website.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures to control the number of dogs being kept within a domestic property.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

While there are no measures that control the number of dogs kept on a single property, a number of laws regulate the effects of keeping animals, which include welfare, cruelty, safety and environmental effects. Furthermore, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, with which the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) is very familiar, had its Commons Second Reading on 10 June and it provides further measures to help tackle irresponsible dog owners.

[Julie Hilling]

Following the tragic death of Jade Lomas Anderson, my constituents in Atherton and across Bolton West believe that more should be done to reduce the number of dogs in houses where they create a nuisance and create fear, because of their ferociousness. Will the Minister amend the current legislation so that there are specific clauses whereby owners can be made to reduce the number of dogs if they are causing fear and potential danger?

[Mr Heath]

I am aware that the hon. Lady has tabled amendments to the Bill exactly to that purpose, and they will be considered in Committee. I do not wish to pre-empt that discussion, but she will know that our view is that the antisocial behaviour orders available in the Bill, on which guidance will be available shortly following discussions with all the appropriate authorities, will deal with the very nuisances that she seeks to remedy.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Of course it is right that the legislation should protect postal workers and utility workers, and make provision against antisocial behaviour. But may I just tell my hon. Friend that there is actually High Court authority—a settled law—whereby if one has more than six dogs, one requires planning permission? We should not be too prescriptive here—if I want to own a number of pugs, it should not be for the state to tell me whether I should own two or four pugs, providing those pugs behave themselves properly.

[Mr Heath]

My hon. Friend has stated the position exactly. Irrespective of the number of pugs he has in his possession, the key thing is whether he is a responsible owner of those dogs, whether he has them under proper control and whether they represent a danger to himself and his neighbours.

[Mr Speaker]

It would be a bit worrying if the Second Church Estates Commissioner, of all people, were other than a responsible owner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What assessment he has made of trends in levels of food insecurity in the UK since 2010.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

The UK food security assessment published in 2010 is a detailed analysis of the global and domestic factors affecting UK food security, including productivity, supply, affordability and safety. The Government continue to monitor trends, but overall the assessment concludes that the UK is well placed to deal with future challenges. In 2012, officials reassessed the report and concluded that it still represents a robust analysis of food security in the UK.

[Mr Bain]

This week, The Economist’s global food security index ranked the UK 20th this year, behind Germany, France and Spain. Can the Minister confirm that food prices in this country rose by more than 4% in the year to May? In the absence of a strong plan from the Government to boost lower-cost, home-grown food, is it not the poorest who bear the largest share of the burden?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is mixing up food security and affordability, and the two are not exactly the same. I answered his original question about food security, on which this country is in a pretty good position. However, rising food prices are a real problem for many families across the country. The factors that affect food prices, which include commodity and oil prices and currency changes, are largely out of the control of any single country. We need to make sure that, as he says, we boost UK production as much as possible and make affordable food available on our shelves, and that is exactly what the Government are doing.

[Andy Sawford]

The 700 children in food poverty in my constituency and their parents would find the Minister’s answer that we are in “a pretty good position” incredibly complacent. I have visited the food bank in Corby, and the people there attribute the massive rise in the number of people coming to them directly to this Government’s economic and social policies. Will the Minister visit the Mustard Seed food bank in his constituency to find out why demand is rising so quickly?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the meaning of the term “food security”, which was the question I was asked and gave a response to. I have said clearly that there is an issue about rising food prices and about poverty across the country, and the fact that families sometimes find it difficult to buy the food that they need. If he thinks there is a direct correlation between the number of food banks and poverty, will he explain why the number of food banks increased by more than 10 times during the previous Administration? Was that the result of the same factors or not?

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

With world population set to rise to 9 billion, we need to nearly double world food production with half as much land, energy and water. Does the Minister agree that British agriculture science and research from GM to a range of other technologies has a major part to play in helping us feed the world?

[Mr Heath]

It is absolutely right that we have the know-how in this country to exploit a wide range of technologies which could make a real difference to being able to feed the rising population not just in this country, but across the world. I hope the agri-tech strategy that we are in the process of launching will make a real difference in getting research into the right areas, making that usable in terms of applicability, and then sharing that expertise with those people who can put it into effect on the ground.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who asked the last question. Does the Minister agree, in addition, that the use of otherwise productive land for biofuels in particular and for solar power is a waste of perfectly useful productive agricultural land, and that we ought to minimise those things and maximise the amount that we can produce in this country?

[Mr Heath]

We have to get the balance right between land that is used for energy, which we need—let us not get away from that—and land that is best used for food production. Those decisions are often best taken at local level. Nevertheless, I am conscious of the need to make full use of good agricultural land for food production.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Minister’s complacency and definitional hair-splitting on the issue of food insecurity, at a time when half a million people were fed in this country by food banks will go down very badly outside this place. This week, his ministerial colleague in the other place said it was difficult to make the causal connections between the benefits squeeze and the soaring use of food banks, yet the Trussell Trust says that 45% of the people who need the help of its 300 food banks have come because of benefit delays or benefit changes. Which of those statements is true?

[Mr Heath]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady fails to understand the terms that she obviously fed to her Back Benchers to ask me about. Food security is a well understood concept. We are talking about feeding the world. We are not talking about food prices in the UK, but food prices in the UK are a very serious issue and not, I think, a matter on which to try to score political points. I am grateful to the various charities which help those who find themselves in difficulties. It is important that we support that in every way we can. I notice that the hon. Lady, with some fanfare, issued a policy review last night, “Feeding the Nation”, which supports virtually all our policies. I give her just one word of advice. If you are going to mention one of our great British cheeses, get the name right: it is single Gloucester, not single Gloucestershire.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

6. What recent progress has been made on reform of the common agricultural policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

T3. The average household loses £700 of food each year to waste. The Government have improved the date labelling of food, but will the Minister help even further by supporting prominent labelling advice on how food can best be stored at home to prolong its freshness?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

My hon. Friend is right, and through the recently announced third phase of the Courtauld commitment, the Government are working with retailers and manufacturers to design products in ways that help households reduce food waste and save money, including improved storage instructions. The Waste and Resources Action programme—WRAP—is working directly with consumers through the Love Food Hate Waste programme, to help people know how best to store different foods.

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

The Government spent £25,000 on a consultation into sky lanterns which concluded that the fire risk is significant, and that they pose a risk to planes and a significant risk to the operation of coastal rescue services. With an estimated £6 million damage caused by a single sky lantern at Smethwick, and a fire that needed 200 firefighters and left only one spare fire tender to cover the whole of the west midlands, are the Government still seriously saying they will do absolutely nothing?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman knows all about doing absolutely nothing on sky lanterns. I asked questions about sky lanterns year after year from the Opposition Benches, and within a month of taking office I commissioned a report into the potential harm they cause to farm animals. The report concluded that it was not possible to quantify the damage to animal welfare in ways that would justify a ban, but it indicated that there was a significant danger of fire. I have communicated that to my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I plan to meet them to discuss further action.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

T7. I know that the Secretary of State takes a close interest in EU affairs and how they interfere with businesses in rural areas. What steps is he taking to ease that situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising the importance of the national pollinator strategy, which we hope to have in time for consultation at the end of this year. A wide range of other pollinator-friendly policies and initiatives are in place, but there are gaps we want to fill, particularly in research. That will give us the opportunity to look across Government and work with non-governmental organisations to review everything we are doing and establish our commitment to the future security of pollinators.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T9. The single-use plastic bag tax has proven successful in Wales. It is being adopted in Ireland and will soon also be adopted in Scotland. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s current plans regarding the introduction of a similar tax in the rest of the country?

[Mr Heath]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have been looking at this issue for some time and we believe there is a need to bear down on the use of plastic bags, particularly those that are non-recyclable. We are looking carefully at evidence from Wales and note the decision in Scotland. We hope to come forward with plans in due course regarding what is appropriate for the English market.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

T4. Now that the Government of millionaires for millionaires have waged war against the poor people of this country by driving down their incomes and pushing up the cost of fuel through the roof, what will the Minister do about food prices, which are increasing three times faster than the pay packet of the average worker?

[Mr Heath]

It will come as some surprise to my wife to learn that I am a millionaire. The hon. Gentleman mentioned fuel prices, but it was this Government who abolished the fuel price escalator, and the Labour party which put it in place.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Given the importance of the common agricultural policy to the EU, does the Minister share my frustration at the lack of Europe-wide food labelling? We heard yesterday from the all-party group for European reform that this was down to language problems, but food labelling can be done with symbols and pictures. Will he pursue this to make sure that we can trade more of our food across Europe?

[Mr Heath]

The most important thing about food labelling is to have systems that are readily understood by the consumer. One of the difficulties is that there is a huge weight of information that could be put on a packet, but putting everything on a packet does not necessarily make it more intelligible and useable for the consumer. We have to get the balance right, and talk to other member states in the EU about it as it is a European competence, but we are absolutely determined to provide proper understandable information that allows consumers to make informed choices.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T5. Blackrod town council recently passed its second resolution to ban Chinese lanterns because of the risk to animals and the danger of fire. The Minister says that he is taking the issue seriously and that he raised it in opposition. Three years on, when will we see legislation to do something about this problem?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady raises an important point that has been raised before. I am clear about the potential danger but we must act proportionately. We have done a study as far as our departmental responsibilities are concerned, which are to do with animal welfare. Other issues—for instance fire—fall into the areas of responsibility of other Departments, and I must now talk to my counterparts to take their views on it and on how we take the matter forward. But I have to say that we have done more in the past 12 months than was done in the previous 13 years.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Minister is familiar with the concerns of my constituent Andrew St Joseph about the lack of involvement of landowners in decisions taken about flood defences and maintenance. Will he look into it and give me an assurance that this will no longer happen and that landowners will be consulted on the maintenance of defences?

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

T6. Following the horsemeat scandals, there are still serious concerns about meat in the supply chain. When will we get a full report? In Leicester there are still concerns about halal food. What discussion has the Minister had with the Food Standards Agency on this?

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have commissioned a major review of food safety as it relates to contents, led by Professor Chris Elliot, which will be made available to the House and discussed. On halal food, we have held discussions with the faith organisations because it is a critical issue for them; not necessarily a Government issue, but certainly something that matters to them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Farmers in the Kettering constituency told me recently that their greatest concern was rural crime and the theft of farm equipment. What work is the Department doing with the Home Department to address this problem?

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

David Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and I think that this is the first time I have done so, so it is a particular pleasure. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), not only on securing the debate and his contribution to it, but on the work of the all-party group for beef and lamb, which he chairs, and its report.

I am going to introduce a few figures, which are important to the debate. It is a fact that man-made greenhouse gas emissions represent a serious threat of climate change. Inescapably, agriculture directly accounts for about 10% to 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. More widely, including other emissions associated with agricultural production, such as land use change, energy for fertiliser production and fuel for transport and refrigeration of products, emissions from global food production are far more significant, perhaps totalling 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK, the figures are rather different. Agriculture accounts for about 9% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, and overall emissions from the agriculture sector have decreased by 20% since 1990, while we expect them to decrease by 12% from 2010 levels by 2025. I hope that that puts the issue into context.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, as well as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), stressed the importance in discussion of such matters of recognising balance—there are downsides, but also upsides. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned, for example, the value not only of biodiversity but of having a thriving and positive economy in the country. Getting the balance right is important, therefore, and is exemplified in specific cases. The hon. Member for Ogmore told us about his little, sad-looking White cattle in Plynlimon. I seem to remember that Plynlimon is the wettest place in the United Kingdom—it has the highest rainfall—so perhaps that is why the cattle look sad: they are sitting at the source of the great River Severn and feeling sorry for themselves, because it is raining. Nevertheless, he made an important point about needing the right animals in the right places to achieve the right results.

To return to our carbon footprint in this country, UK beef and lamb producers are among the most efficient globally. In 2010, the EU Joint Research Centre published a report showing that British beef is produced with less than half the emissions per kilogram than beef from Brazil. Those results are supported by research undertaken by Ricardo-AEA and Cranfield university, which reported that beef from Brazil is produced with 33% greater emissions than beef from the UK. The point I am making, because many Members have been concerned about what carbon footprinting is all about, is that it can be a useful tool to help businesses identify inefficiencies and emissions hot spots in order to improve not only environmental performance, but business efficiency and competitiveness.

I was slightly concerned by the contributions of some Members, who suggested a serious detriment to agricultural producers in this country, which carbon footprinting is not. Carbon footprints are not used in international policy making; they are tools for the benchmarking and marketing of products. In England and Wales, we do not have Government targets for mitigation in the agricultural sector. International emission comparisons are made using greenhouse gas inventories that are compiled under strict guidance issued by the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change. It is important to recognise that carbon footprinting can help the industry to meet not only our societal needs, in dealing with greenhouse gases, but its business needs, in doing the right thing. Carbon footprints are not intended—I can certainly foresee no such intention—to be introduced as targets or as something that individual producers must fulfil.

Nevertheless, the industry wants to do better. The UK beef and sheep industry, therefore, is seeking further emission reductions through the EBLEX product road maps, recognising that measures to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions generally increase business efficiency and competitiveness. My Department welcomes such developments as part of the wider growth strategy for the sector.

The APG made some specific points. Its report draws attention to the problems of standardisation for carbon footprinting of the beef and sheep sector. Under the previous Government, DEFRA worked with the British Standards Institute and the Carbon Trust to develop the PAS 2050 standard for carbon footprinting and to encourage best practice. PAS 2050 aims to simplify carbon footprinting so that it can be carried out by a wider range of practitioners, and provides guidance to ensure greater consistency in approach.

The report is right to point out, however, areas of uncertainty where flexibility is needed, so PAS 2050 is not prescriptive for individual products, although it includes the potential for industry to develop product guidelines known as “supplementary requirements” to ensure that consistent approaches are used and to improve comparability of results. The dairy sector, for example, has produced such guidance via DairyCo, in partnership with the Carbon Trust. DairyCo has also worked with the International Dairy Federation to promote international standardisation. EBLEX is, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ogmore, discussing international standards for carbon footprinting beef production systems with the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative or SAI Platform, a food-industry initiative supporting the development of sustainable agriculture worldwide. Similarly, EBLEX is exploring options to develop international standards for lamb production.

The APG report also calls for improved accounting of soil carbon sequestration in carbon footprinting. PAS 2050 provides for the optional inclusion of soil carbon sequestration in carbon footprinting, but we might have a misunderstanding about the terminology, which I want to address. There is a distinction between carbon storage and carbon sequestration: carbon storage is carbon that is held by permanent pasture or any other land management system; and carbon sequestration is a process by which carbon is captured in that system.

Scientific understanding indicates that UK pastures represent a significant store of carbon, but do not tend to sequester additional carbon from the atmosphere. That is where the distinction needs to be drawn. If we change land management, of course we have a change—perhaps a positive one, perhaps a negative one, but one that could be either sequestration or release of carbon—but, in a steady state, we do not have a movement of carbon on that basis. Where management practices are employed to increase soil carbon sequestration, the benefits are often small, uncertain and difficult to measure. Nevertheless, DEFRA has invested £390,000 in a project to improve carbon accounting under agricultural land management, including work to assess the extent to which agricultural land management can enhance carbon sequestration in the UK, the findings of which will support carbon footprinting studies. We expect the results to be published in the spring of 2014.

[Bill Wiggin]

My understanding of what the Minister said is that grassland is better storage than a sequestration process. However, the business of farming for cattle and sheep means that the carbon is captured by the grass and then moved along the food chain as the cattle eat the grass and become food and manure. That is the sequestration process, and that is why it is important to measure it.

[Mr Heath]

There is a constant store in any land management system. Any landscape feature, if it is not changed, will have a constant store, so there is a zero-sum gain. If the land is ploughed up or a different crop is grown, the equation may change and the position will be different. That is the simple point that I am making.

We want to continue to fund research into improving the sophistication and accuracy of carbon footprinting methods to support the industry and we have engaged actively in the production of internationally agreed standards for carbon footprints. Research under the UK’s agricultural greenhouse gas research and development platform is a £13.5 million initiative which, in response to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is not in his place at the moment, is shared with the devolved Administrations, so it is also relevant to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Its purpose is to improve the understanding of greenhouse gas emissions from UK agriculture, and it will also provide underpinning evidence to improve the quality of carbon footprints.

Given the wide variety of production systems and processes in beef and sheep farming, carbon footprinting inevitably becomes part of the marketing mix, but as with other product information, the industry has a responsibility to be transparent about what it has and has not included in the analyses.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister address the point that was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) about methane emissions? I believe that 37% of methane emissions are attributable to the livestock sector, but the hon. Gentleman argued that because they come from a natural source they may not be as environmentally damaging as emissions from other sources. My understanding is that emissions are emissions and cause the same harm regardless of where they originate.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady is of course right. A greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas and has an effect on climate change. I do not accept entirely the argument about some being natural and others are not. That is transparently the case, but it is not a distinction that should affect our consideration of emissions. Some processes and activities are more avoidable than others, and some have a societal interest. The hon. Lady’s contention is perfectly respectable and she is entirely consistent in what she says about not using pasture land to produce animals as we do at the moment. However, society generally does not agree with that view. Society in this country generally wants to eat meat and wants the most efficient and effective processes, which is why we provide research support to help the industry to make those processes as beneficial and as least harmful as possible, but that does not mean that people do not want to eat meat. In the same way, people want to move around the country despite the fact that doing so has a demonstrable effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thought I made it clear at the beginning that I was concerned primarily about soya and grain production and its impact, rather than grass-fed animals in this country.

[Mr Heath]

I understand. I am not trying to misrepresent the hon. Lady’s point of view. She opened her comments by saying that she was somewhat masochistic in expressing her view in a debate populated largely by people with agricultural interests.

If we can do anything to mitigate effects on agriculture and any other sphere, we should do so. If we can provide help with research and help the industry to help itself in reducing those effects, all the better. We want to put all those factors into the equation with the other undoubted benefits of extensive pasture and the societal changes in parts of the country where other forms of agriculture would be exceedingly difficult, or in areas where there is huge expertise, for example, in beef production. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) prayed in aid his Hereford cattle, and I thought there might be tension between those with Herefords and those with Aberdeen Angus cattle, but that did not arise. Let us join together in saying that this country is blessed with not only some of the best breeds of livestock, but some of the best livestock husbandry anywhere. I am proud of that, and it makes my job that much easier.

My final point is about industry development and supplementary requirements, and responds in part to the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton’s all-party group. Getting development of supplementary requirements under PAS 2050 and product rules under the greenhouse gas protocol product standard will help to bring consistency to carbon footprinting in the beef and sheep sector. EBLEX has taken the lead, and is a very effective levy-funded organisation. It is working on a UK-wide basis, which is relevant to some of the arguments about levy funding in the red meat sector, to produce the best possible advice and support for all producers throughout the United Kingdom, and I support it in that.

My hon. Friend and his all-party group have made some important points about the lack of consistency and the interpretation of the information we have to date. We accept that there is a lack of consistency. We want to improve that and to make the information as useful as possible because that will help the industry to move in the right direction in reducing as far as possible the emissions from agriculture and ensuring that we contribute as much as we can to our overall reduction in greenhouse gas. I hope we all support that. It is a principal feature of Government policy.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for his response. I want to put on the record the benefits of grass-fed beef and sheep production, and the fact that the amount of carbon stored in the soil balances the methane gas that the animals release. That is the particular point that I wanted the report to emphasise.

[Mr Heath]

I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend to make that final comment without running foul of the procedural rules. This debate has been extremely useful and interesting. The argument will continue to engage us, but we have made a valuable contribution today.

Common Agricultural Policy

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15396/11, a draft Regulation establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, No. 15425/11, a draft Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), No. 15397/11, relating to a draft Regulation on establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), and No. 15426/11, a draft Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government’s continuing efforts to amend these proposals in order to secure better value for money for the taxpayer and establish a greener, simpler CAP that enables the development of an innovative, competitive and market-orientated farming industry and thriving rural communities.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate these important issues in the House today. It is particularly timely because next week the Secretary of State will be going to Luxembourg in the expectation of securing a deal on the common agricultural policy at the Agriculture Council. With CAP reform subject to co-decision for the first time, the negotiations between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission have been intensive during the last few months, and indeed are likely to be during the next few days as well. It is thanks to the sterling efforts of the current Irish EU presidency that a potential deal is now within reach.

As many hon. Members will be well aware, the Government’s priority on CAP reform has been to negotiate a good deal for UK farmers, taxpayers and consumers, and that means working to deliver a greener, simpler CAP that continues to orientate itself to the market, increases the international competitiveness of EU agriculture, and increases our capacity to deliver environmental outcomes.

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

Does the Minister agree that successive Governments have tried to reform the common agricultural policy and there has been very little progress, although in the past previous Conservative Governments have tried to make out to the public that they have actually made some progress when they have not?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is right that it is a long, hard business to reform the CAP. The sadness is that occasionally within negotiations some member states want to turn the clock back, and even to forgo the reforms that have already been accomplished, so I will not pretend anything other than that this is a long, hard process and the advantages and the movement forward that we gain are not always as far and as quick as we would wish them to be.

We want to see an efficient and responsive agricultural sector not just across the EU, but globally, and the CAP should be central to helping us achieve that. It is therefore essential that the CAP continues to reform and to reduce reliance on damaging direct subsidies that do not offer good value for money or deliver the public goods we want. The UK has worked extremely hard to engage with like-minded member states throughout the ongoing negotiations to ensure that the CAP continues on the path of reform, but we know that other member states and elements in the European Parliament are determined to turn the clock back and reverse some of the hard-won reforms of MacSharry and Fischler. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

I will touch on a few of the priority areas that will be the focus of our negotiating efforts over the next week. First, market intervention remains a prime concern. As we all know, the CAP has made great progress over the years in reducing reliance on expensive and trade-distorting measures that interfere with the market and helped to create the butter mountains and wine lakes of the past. I was therefore very disappointed when in March the European Parliament voted through amendments that would move EU agriculture away from market orientation. Those proposals would increase budget pressures for old-style market support. That is not an acceptable use of taxpayers’ money. It hits consumers twice; they pay for their food once through their taxes and again at the tills.

The EU sugar regime, for example, constricts supply in the market and adds costs for British food and drink producers and ultimately for the consumer. The combined effect of EU beet quotas and high tariffs on cane imports means that the current EU regime has driven up the wholesale price of sugar by 35% and added 1% to the food bills of hard-pressed families. Members states had previously agreed to end the restrictive sugar beet production quotas by 2015, but there has been incredible pressure to unpick that agreement. In our compromise in March, we agreed a partial extension of sugar beet quotas to 2017. I am disappointed that Members of the European Parliament voted to extend the quotas further to 2020. That is unacceptable. The situation is compounded by the lack of a level playing field for sugar cane imports, something we are working to change. We need to remain fully committed to moving the CAP in the right direction towards greater market orientation. Nothing must be left to chance. Butter mountains and wine lakes must remain a thing of the past.

I know that many hon. Members have an interest in the proposed greening of the CAP. The Government believe that the CAP should reward farmers for the public goods they deliver, such as environmental benefits and protecting and enhancing wildlife. Pillar two of the CAP is the best place to fund that, which is why at the European Council in February the Prime Minister secured the additional flexibility to be able to transfer up to 15% of our direct payments budget to fund our rural development and environmental programmes.

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

My hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns of the National Farmers Union and a whole alliance of farming organisations in that regard, and not just in north Yorkshire. Bearing in mind that our farmers already commit to many greening policies through stewardship schemes, 15%, or even 11%, would be unacceptably high and would make our farmers uncompetitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am afraid that is an area where the National Farmers Union and the Government simply do not agree. I believe that we currently have extremely good higher level stewardship schemes within pillar two, and I want those to continue and to prosper. I want us to ensure that we can continue payments on some of the older schemes, where we have accrued benefit, which I do not want us to lose. I am absolutely clear that where we use the pillar two payments in the most effective way, we will be doing so to enhance the position of those who work the land and confer on it public goods. For instance, one of my priorities will be to see what we can do in upland areas, where people farm in less favourable conditions and where it might make all the difference, but I simply do not agree that the best way to distribute money is necessarily through pillar one.

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

Will the Minister expand on that? Farmers have expressed their concern to me in recent weeks and months over the transfers to pillar two. How can more effective use be made of the arrangements so that those farmers are not put at a competitive disadvantage? What fine-tuning can be carried out? How can we get more bang for our buck in the pillar two funding?

[Mr Heath]

A simple answer—I appreciate that it might be considered a simplistic one—is that we target the funding better towards the places where it will have the most effect. We have a highly efficient and effective agriculture industry and we do not need to target funding at all sectors. We need to ensure that it reaches the places where it will have the greatest effect. As I have said, this is where we part company with the National Farmers Union, which would like us to maintain the maximum funding within pillar one. We believe, however, that pillar two is the most effective vehicle for benefiting environmental interests, which are important, and for directing support to the areas of this country’s agriculture that need it most.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right to place the emphasis on pillar two. The figure for voluntary modulation to which he referred was 15%, but can he confirm that the figure for voluntary modulation has previously been as high as 19%? Can he also expand on what the 15% figure is going to mean for farmers, and on the implications for the Treasury in this regard?

[Mr Heath]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman as full an answer as he would wish. First, we have not yet agreed the deal, so we do not know whether that voluntary modulation figure will stand. Secondly, a lot will depend on the design of the schemes and on how we implement them at national level. We have been pushing the argument in Europe that, in relation to the devolved Administrations, we want as much flexibility and local determination as possible in the design of operation. We want to give Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the opportunity to use their own discretion on behalf of their own farming businesses, as they will know the best way of implementing the schemes in those countries. If we are successful in our objective of achieving that flexibility, as we have been so far, we will effectively have a devolved CAP.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister acknowledge the need for regional flexibility to allow Northern Ireland to tailor any new policy to fit the needs of the local industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

Absolutely. That has been one of our key objectives during the negotiations, and we have worked closely with Ministers from the devolved Administrations in that process. On any objective assessment, the Secretary of State has been remarkably successful in getting those elements written into the scripts that have emerged from the Council. The difficulty now is that we need to reach agreement with the European Parliament, and we want to ensure that the elements survive that process.

[Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Surely the answer to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is no, voluntary modulation was not at 19%. It was 9%; the other 10% was compulsory modulation that applied to every member state.

[Sir James Paice]

The hon. Gentleman accepts my point. That arrangement created a level playing field across the whole of the EU. The reason that the NFU is concerned is that it is probably only English farmers who could lose 15%, thus making this an issue of competition.

[Mr Heath]

I do not accept the issue of competitiveness, but I entirely accept the figures that my right hon. Friend has cited. That is the correct position.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister said that only the devolved Administrations will be allowed to tailor their schemes to the needs of their own farmers, but that would be inherently unfair on the English farmer. I hope that he will agree that this is a wonderful opportunity to revisit some of the schemes, because some of the active upland farmers, who are often tenants, have been disadvantaged by the way in which the current schemes operate.

[Mr Heath]

I hope that I have not misled the House in any way on this. We will bring forward our own proposals that will apply to England. I was simply making the point that the devolved Administrations would not have to conform to an English model. They will be able to devise their own schemes that will work best for them.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely interested in the Minister’s point about the United Kingdom having policies that are relevant to our own interests. In relation to the review of competences, will he tell us whether there is any intention to repatriate the common agricultural policy?

[Mr Heath]

That depends on how we define repatriation. We have been arguing strongly for increased flexibility at national and regional level for those countries that have devolved Administrations. The obvious examples are the United Kingdom and Belgium, both of which feel strongly about this matter. We need the option to define some of the terms and regulations that will be put in place, so that they match our forms of agriculture. There is already divergence within this country over the application of the CAP. For example, there are still historic payments in Scotland. In my personal view, there will eventually be a need for internal convergence on that issue, but it is for the Scots to decide on the rate of change and on whether that should happen sooner or later. I believe that it is a distorting element at the moment.

The UK Government also argued, however, that we did not want a sudden, bumpy transition that would put the Scottish Government in difficulties while they were trying to achieve their objectives. So, although we want internal convergence, we have asked for as smooth a transition as possible because that will be in the interests of the devolved Administrations. There is already a considerable degree of variation in the way in which the current scheme works. We are trying to ensure that that continues and is enhanced under the new rules.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The Minister has put on record his intention to help hill and upland farmers in England. At the moment, there are three rates for the single payment, relating to moorlands, severely disadvantaged areas and lowlands. Would it not be advantageous to upland farmers if we had only moorland and lowland payments?

[Mr Heath]

As always, my hon. Friend is very well informed on these subjects. He is right, and that is something that we will be looking at in relation to the implementation phase.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Reference has been made to Scotland in regard to the transition. Would the situation that the Minister has described apply also to Wales and England?

[Mr Heath]

Wales will have the same capacity as Scotland to apply its own CAP rules within the overall rules, although the rules that will apply in Wales will not be quite the same because Wales will not be starting from the same position as Scotland. There is already an increased degree of convergence in Wales. The situation is not exactly the same, but that freedom is in the script for the settlement that we have agreed so far.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I should perhaps continue with my speech for a few minutes, rather than take any more interventions.

We do not believe that the original proposal for greening direct payments offered the same value for money as our existing agri-environmental schemes, and we have been working hard to move the negotiations in a positive direction. Any greening must be meaningful, administratively simple and deliver real environmental benefits for the taxpayers’ money that is spent on it. Value for taxpayers’ money is vital, which is why I am also opposed to proposals under which it would be possible to get paid twice for carrying out the same greening measures under both pillar one and pillar two.

No decisions have been taken on how greening will be implemented but, importantly, the position we agreed at the March Council included, as I have said, increased flexibility for member states and regions to deliver greening through a national scheme, if they so wish.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. Will he respond to the concern of many farmers that the flexibility that the UK Government have understandably negotiated for our farmers could be interpreted very differently by farmers in other member nations and that it could, in fact, be interpreted to the disadvantage of our own farmers?

[Mr Heath]

Obviously, we try as far as possible to eliminate potential disadvantages. I cannot say that we will be successful across the board, because this is a negotiated settlement. Where possible we try to make sure that we all play to common ground rules, but with local interpretation. It is clear, for instance, that lowland dairy farming in this country is very different from growing olives on a Greek island. Different criteria apply and we want to make sure that we recognise the differences as well as the common basis.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the Minister’s understanding of this complex issue. Many farmers who have had to leave their comfort zone and consider doing other things will also be impacted by the CAP changes, so will help be made available to those who wish to diversify?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful for that question. A lot will depend on the local determination in Northern Ireland for the options under pillar two, which provides the capacity for supporting diversification. The relevant Northern Ireland Minister will have to decide the extent to which voluntary modulation applies and whether the pillar two schemes will be devised to support diversification. The capacity is there and the decision on whether it will happen or not will be a local one.

[Dr McCrea]

The Minister is being very gracious in the number of interventions he is willing to take. The UK has received the lowest EU share of the rural development budget, which will impact on schemes such as agri-environmental schemes, the less favoured area compensatory allowance and farm modernisation. Will the Government balance the reduction in rural development with funds from, for instance, pillar one?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman asks a basic question about voluntary modulation. We have already indicated that we will probably wish to see significant modulation from pillar one to pillar two in England. Obviously, other structural funds could be used for those purposes, if desired. On rural development, there is a need to utilise every possible source of funding to improve the rural economy. We are not simply talking about what is available through CAP funding to support agricultural and rural development.

[Sir James Paice]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

Of course.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I gently point out that this is a 90-minute debate? The Minister’s speech is a matter of considerable importance and we listen to it with interest and respect, but no fewer than nine hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, each and every one of whom is present and expectant. I know that Members will wish to tailor their contributions accordingly. If Sir James wishes, nevertheless, to persist—doubtless he will—I ask him to do so with great brevity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Paice]

I will be very brief, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful if the Minister put on the record the Government’s position on voluntary modulation but the other way around. Moving on from his argument about taking 15% from pillar one to pillar two, do the Government strongly oppose those in other countries who wish to have the flexibility to move money from pillar two to pillar one?

[Mr Heath]

We do not believe that is a sensible position. We are not likely to succeed in preventing it, but we will look very carefully at where it may be applied and whether it will distort the agricultural market overall.

I take to heart what you have said, Mr Speaker. I was trying to allow Members to ask legitimate questions, but let me now make progress.

Simplification must be at the heart of all our CAP reforms. That is one of the Government’s priorities. Whatever the outcome, we must have a CAP that is straightforward for farmers to follow and simple for our national Administrations to implement.

We have made progress at home, through the farming regulation taskforce, in looking at unnecessary red tape and reducing burdens on farmers. It is important that we do not undo that good work with complicated changes in the CAP. I firmly believe that we should be getting out of farmers’ hair and freeing them from the burden of unnecessary red tape. We have already made significant progress. Since 2011, we have identified £13 of savings to farmers for every £1 of compliance costs added.

I know, however, that there is more to be done and I am determined to take further steps towards a more risk-based approach to inspections that will allow farmers who consistently achieve high standards to earn recognition and receive less frequent visits. We must work together to achieve this. It is important that European rules do not knock us off our course. Having made such good progress at home, I do not want CAP reform to bring additional burdens.

On regionalisation, which I have already mentioned, amendments clarifying the regional implementation of the CAP are very important. A reformed CAP must deliver benefits for farmers, taxpayers and consumers throughout the UK, and to ensure that, we must have the clarity to implement the CAP in line with our devolution arrangements. Achieving this is a priority for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and we will push hard to get it next week.

I cannot conclude without mentioning the CAP budget. As hon. Members will know, the Prime Minister negotiated a 13% cut in the overall CAP budget at the European Council in February. The smaller EU budget negotiated by the Prime Minister is appropriate in the current economic climate, and the reduction to the CAP budget made an important contribution in that regard. This reduction in EU expenditure will be to the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

The allocation of the CAP budget between member states has not yet been finalised, but it would appear that the UK’s share of the CAP will remain roughly equal to its existing share. How the CAP budget will be divided between the UK regions and nations is still to be agreed. Discussions between my officials and their counterparts in the devolved Administrations are now under way and I understand that a number of models for the distribution of pillar one and pillar two funds are being developed.

I hope that the motion captures the UK’s vision for a future CAP. I look forward to the debate and hope that the House will support the Government’s continuing efforts to secure a greener, simpler CAP that delivers better value for the taxpayer and enables the development of an innovative, competitive and market-oriented farming industry and thriving rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of this area, is right. It is as though the Government are playing with one hand behind their back. I have great sympathy for the Minister, because although he has great knowledge and wants to work in the best interests of UK farming, his colleagues are not making it easy for him.

[Mr Heath]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words. I am interested to know what is the position of the Labour party today. Does it support or oppose the budget reduction? Would it have failed to argue for the budget reduction, or does it agree that the Prime Minister had a success in those negotiations?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister ought to go back and look at the voting record, because the Labour party voted collectively on that matter.

The thrust of the Minister’s speech was about a more competitive farming industry. We do have a strong farming industry. The question is whether he and his Eurosceptic colleagues can carry that forward through the negotiations. I commend the work of UKRep officials in trying to get the very best outcome from a misguided ministerial approach to the EU. They have stuck their fingers in diplomatic dams, while Ministers have been digging away the foundations. I suspect that the Minister has been somewhat dismayed and has done his best among a very bad lot, but it has been a model exercise in how not to win friends and how not to influence people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I have limited time to reply to a very interesting debate, including to the rather ungenerous comments of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I always know that the more flowery his language, the more he secretly agrees with the Government. When he resorts to Alfred, Lord Tennyson, I know that I have total agreement across the Dispatch Box.

Some important points were raised. One was about the opt-out for greening measures. Yes, there is in the current proposals a penalty for opting out, but we are seeking to remove it if we possibly can, so that the penalty will be the loss of income from not applying the greening measures.

Several Members—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and many others—talked about co-financing measures. It is our view and it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating position in the budget discussions that these arrangements will not require co-financing. It is obviously always possible for the Treasury to put more money into the pot, but I have to say that I do not see the prospects for that as extraordinarily high at the moment.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned farmers without entitlement. We are continuing to negotiate on that, because we see—

Dog Control and Welfare

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I welcome that intervention, and the fact that the Committee’s thinking has evolved based on more evidence. That is the right approach. We should explore such things to get the right evidence-based policy outcomes.

I want to spend a little time on the detail in dog control notices. The other day, I pointed out on the Floor of the House that we are not convinced by the Government’s explanations why dog control notices are not necessary and will not work. I will go through some of the reasons. Neither the Secretary of State for the Home Department nor her Minister could respond in detail to some of my questions, but my point was that they need a pretty compelling case why the Government’s approach is better than the one everybody else has lined up behind—all the organisations I spoke about. Everybody is arguing against it on the basis of not only what the Scottish Government have done, but the other examples of similar animal welfare measures that are used effectively in England already, and to which I alluded in the debate the other day.

We will have to test the measure to the point of destruction in Committee and test the Government on why they are sticking with it. We will try to persuade the Government of the arguments and persuade them to go further, and I shall explain why. We are far from being convinced that the Government’s proposals based around community protection notices and public space protection orders will deal with the individual circumstances of problem dogs and problem owners, rather than tackling all dogs and all owners in an area, district or region and so on, or that the proposals can be individualised to allow for early intervention.

We need to see that the proposals can be personalised and individualised, including aspects such as an individual dog needing to be muzzled in certain circumstances, a fence around a garden being maintained to an adequate condition, an owner being sent on a training course, a dog being neutered or restrictions placed on off-lead activity. We will be testing all those things.

We also need to see that the response before there is an attack and public safety is compromised is flexible and proportionate, so that the proposal does what all the organisations have been asking for: protects public safety and the dog’s welfare, rather than steps in afterwards. We are trying to get at the owners who are repeatedly termed “irresponsible”, which could be for a number of reasons, such as ignorance, lack of awareness or general malicious intent. We need to go towards them and their dogs, rather than having a blunderbuss approach.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

indicated assent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister is nodding, so I know he is going to say a lot of good things in his response.

Are CPNs and the PSPOs—sorry for the jargon—a version of what has been termed a “DOGBO” for problem dogs and owners? If so—the shadow Home Office team will also ask Ministers about that in Committee—given the scale of the challenge and problem identified by the EFRA Committee and other hon. Members, what assurances do we have that such measures will be prioritised among the plethora of other powers in the Bill? An individual police chief constable, or his officers on the ground, must decide with the local authority and other community safety partners that dogs, among all the other challenges, are the pressing priority on an estate or in an area where there is a problem. Without a focus on dog control notices, the worry is that the issue will not be a priority and will become mixed up in the whole.

[Mr Heath]

indicated dissent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I see the Minister shaking his head and I know that he will come back on that issue. I am glad to see him suggest that that will not be a problem. He will explain today why that is the case.

Will there be adequate resources? I asked on the Floor of the House whether the problem with the dog control notice is that it instantly sends shockwaves through Whitehall and down to local government that resources must follow. If that is the case, let us be honest about it. If that is the problem, which it is, and if we agree on the scale of the challenge and the need to turn things round, which we do, let us have a frank discussion about how we resource this. We have rising dog attacks, injuries and fatalities; rising kennelling costs for local authorities and the police; and more people washing up in A and E units and costing the NHS money. The proposal has to be resourced; otherwise, we can pass all the legislation and regulation and employ all the nudge factors or whatever in the world, but we will not have an effect on the ground, as the hon. Member for The Cotswolds pointed out.

In the absence of dog control notices, how will the Minister ensure that the measures he proposes, among the plethora of measures in the Home Office Bill, will be adequately understood, not only by the police and community safety agencies, which are expected to enforce them, but by the public, who will come to our constituency offices and say, “We know of a problem,” or by a postal worker who says to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, “We’ve identified a dog; I don’t know what to do about it.”? Will it be properly explained and understood, so that they can use the mechanisms at hand?

Are the measures too bureaucratic? One great advantage of a flexible early intervention approach is that we can get in early, without having to go back to a magistrates court or get another type of permission that requires 20 forms to be filled out. There can be early, gentle, soft, clever interventions, such as saying to an owner, “He hasn’t done anything yet, but there is a problem. You’ve had a visit from the RSPCA and the local health worker. They have both said that there is a problem. When you have visitors in your property, will you please muzzle that dog. What you do otherwise is up to you.” Will it be that sort of approach, or will a massive bureaucracy have to be gone through to take any action under the proposal?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

We have had an excellent debate. I commend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on introducing it and on the work of her Committee on a crucial issue. I am also pleased to commend the Liaison Committee on choosing the subject as suitable for debate today.

Perhaps I should start by saying that there is much more that unites us on this subject than divides us. We are working to the same end, and have shared much thinking in policy formation. The hon. Lady was kind enough to point out areas where the Government have not only listened, but acted, to bring in measures that will, I hope, make a difference to the minority—I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that it is a minority of dog owners—who, whether through ignorance, neglect, or sometimes, I am afraid, malice, end up with dogs that are a danger to others and a nuisance to the community. Such measures are what we need to achieve.

The hon. Member for Ogmore repeatedly asked me to declare myself “the one”, in a Mourinho sort of way —“the special one”—in relation to dogs. Rather shamefacedly, I must say that I am not actually “the one”: my noble Friend Lord de Mauley is. He has responsibility for those matters in the Department. However, I am happy to be “the one” as far as this House is concerned, and to respond to the debate.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister confirm that Lord de Mauley—great chap that he is—chairs some cross-Whitehall group that pulls all the strands together?

[Mr Heath]

Lord de Mauley has certainly been working closely with others, including the devolved Administrations, but particularly with the Home Office. There is a shared responsibility with the Home Office, and it is important that we speak with one voice, and come to the same conclusions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that such liaison has happened.

A Bill is before the House that will enact parts of our response to the undoubted issue raised by hon. Members, on which some have campaigned for a long time. I welcome the support that the Committee has been able to give to the Government’s position. There are several aspects of the matter on which we have gone further than was perhaps originally intended, in recognition of the strength of the Committee’s arguments. There are some areas on which we still do not have 100% agreement, and I shall deal with those.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which amends the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, had its Second Reading on Monday, and there was an excellent debate. The House broadly endorsed the Government’s approach. The Bill includes provisions that will extend the 1991 Act to all places, including private property. It provides legislative backing for the police and Crown Prosecution Service to pursue prosecutions for attacks on private property. That will reassure victims and their families that the law is on their side. I hope that once the Bill is passed the circumstances that the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) is all too familiar with, and which she spoke about forcefully in the House, will never again arise.

The Bill for the first time incorporates an aggravated offence, under the 1991 Act, of an attack on an assistance dog, recognising the terrible consequences of such an attack. That is important: an assistance dog is almost an extension of the person with whom it works. It is part of that person’s being, and an attack on a guide dog or hearing dog makes a huge difference to their life. It is right to clarify and extend the law in that way.

The Bill will also clarify the fact that courts should consider the character of the owner when taking decisions about dogs of prohibited types, and dangerously out-of-control dogs. That point was raised by several hon. Members: it is not the breed, but what the individual dog is doing, that is important. There is no breed that cannot be dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible owner. Sometimes that fact is taken to considerable lengths, because there are people—a very small number—who deliberately have dogs that they use as weapons, to intimidate and on occasion actually cause hurt to another person.

That leads me to a point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton West: new legislation is not needed to deal effectively with a dog being deliberately set on a person to injure them. It would be covered by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the maximum penalty would be life imprisonment. The question of the appropriateness of the maximum fine level does not apply: the law treats such action as a very serious offence, and the prosecuting authorities have the capacity to deal with it.

The Bill would also provide the police with discretion to use the civil route in cases involving prohibited types of dog, with improved welfare, reduced kennel time and police savings in time and money. It would provide comprehensive powers for the authorities to take preventive action to stop dog attacks and nip issues in the bud, through, for example, a community protection notice.

That issue was raised by many hon. Members in the debate, and we need to discuss the fundamental question whether our proposed measures in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill treat the same issue and have the same rigour as the so-called dog control notices that many advocate. My answer is that they do. In fact, they are an even more flexible tool.

I accept, however, that we need to substantiate that position and satisfy people’s concerns. One thing I would say to everyone involved in the debate is, “Please let us not get hung up on the label of dog control notices.” It is profoundly unhelpful to the debate about providing protection if the only thing people are arguing for is something with that name, rather than something that does what they want to see done. That is my first point.

Secondly, many people have pointed with approbation to what is available in Scotland, saying, “That is the answer. Why on earth are the UK Government so stupid or obstinate as not to follow the Scottish route?” Of course I respect what the Scottish Government do and the measures they introduce, but we need carefully and critically to consider whether the dog control notice legislation in Scotland achieves the objectives it was set. There is some evidence from Scottish local authorities that the notices are not working as well as hon. Members would believe—if, indeed, they believed everything that was sent to them.

At the 21 May meeting of the cross-party group on animal welfare in Edinburgh, Scottish local authorities expressed a number of concerns, which highlighted the ongoing problems with the dog control notice—or DCN—system. The meeting was also attended by a number of dog welfare organisations from across the UK, and a series of detailed problems were identified.

A dog control notice in Scotland must be served by two officers, and any breach needs corroborated evidence from two officers to pursue a case, which is a limiting factor in bringing successful conclusions. A person who is served a dog control notice must attend the council offices, or two officers must visit their home, so it is hardly the on-the-spot mechanism that some have suggested it is. A dog has to have been out of control on at least one occasion before a DCN can be served, so the measure does not nip the issue in the bud. Since some people have strongly advocated that we need to be able to identify the problem before it happens, I am not sure that the notices satisfy that test.

Another problem is that the police in Scotland have no powers to serve DCNs; only local authorities do. Importantly, there is no requirement for a dog owner to advise their local authority if they re-home a dog with another owner, or to inform it of the new owner’s address. A potentially dangerous dog, therefore, can easily appear in a different local authority area with absolutely no recourse.

We need to make clear what the DCNs in Scotland do that we do not and, likewise, what we can offer that DCNs do not. When we have done that critical comparison, I hope that hon. Members will take a view as to whether we are working on the right lines. I perfectly understand the concerns, but I ask people to treat the arguments with the necessary respect and care, rather than simply adopting the slogan that this is the only possible solution to the problem.

[Miss McIntosh]

I should declare that I am a Scottish advocate, albeit non-practising. I am aware of the criticism that the dog control notices in Scotland are labour and resource-intensive, but I think that the Minister has just walked into a situation where he has given very good grounds for the dog control notice legislation to be reviewed, to allow the police to administer the notices.

I do not think, however, that the Minister has answered the question about prevention that has been put by a number of hon. Members. Although there has to have been one incident, I think that the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said correctly that it has to be a proven incident and not just a malicious report. I think that the Minister has just made the case for a review of dog control notices, and I do not see in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill anything that comes close to a preventive measure.

[Mr Heath]

That is where we need detailed and careful examination of the proposals. I accept the point that the hon. Member for Ogmore made—that part of that process will be to consider the guidelines—but I cannot give him an absolute commitment that the guidelines will be ready for Committee. I wish I could, but there is a very good reason why I cannot: we are working carefully through the issues, with the various dog welfare interests, the police, the local authority associations and everyone with a professional interest in the matter, so that we get the guidance and the compass of the notices right, and the hon. Gentleman’s demands are met.

I do not want to speak out of turn or put words into the mouths of other organisations—that would be inappropriate—but we have generally found that when we have been able to explain the benefits to interested organisations, and have done a “compare and contrast” between what they hope could be achieved through dog control notices and what we believe we can achieve through the new orders, they acknowledge the facts.

I hope that hon. Members do not see this as patronising, because that is not my intention, but there is sometimes a lag between what hon. Members are aware of as concerns and the solutions to those concerns. I hope that there will be a catching-up regarding the briefings that some people have received—from the Local Government Association, for instance, which now welcomes the antisocial behaviour measures and accepts that they will enable local authorities to do a lot for dogs.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am tempted to use, or subvert, an old adage, and say that I have been patronised in better places—as indeed I have.

If the Minister cannot introduce the guidance at short notice, I suggest that he introduce in Committee, or even before, the comparisons he has talked about, along with any other detail. The more we have in black and white to work with, the more we might be assured. Alternatively, we might say that we are far from assured; nevertheless, we need in front of us whatever he has.

[Mr Heath]

I very much understand that, having sat in more Bill Committees over the years than I care to enumerate. I recognise that that is exactly what the Public Bill Committee will wish to do, in examining the notices. What I hope will emerge is that the antisocial behaviour measures provide a flexible package that will deal effectively with irresponsible dog owners, and will do everything available under a DCN, and more.

When the hon. Gentleman was saying, “Will it do this, will it do that?” he saw me nodding. That was because I had a sort of mental checklist, and was thinking, “Yes it will do that, yes it will do that.” It could include, for instance, positive requirements for an individual to attend training classes or to keep their dog on a lead—that sort of specificity.

There is a view that we are talking about a broad-brush area-based measure, but that is not the case. The measures are intended exactly as we are saying—to address the issues of a person with a dog that might get out of control, and to be able to deal with that at an early stage. Crucially, they are personal to the owner and not the dog—a point stressed by everyone—which is an important difference between our measures and the dog control notices. The focus must be on the individual understanding of the person’s responsibility for the animal under their control, and what they need to do to improve their management of that animal.

My expectation is that once people understand both the flexibility and the compass of the proposals, they will accept that such matters are covered. However, it is not for me to pre-empt discussions in Committee. I simply invite Members in each place to approach this with an open mind and to see whether the items on their individual mental checklists are ticked off.

Incidentally, public space protection orders will directly replace dog control orders, which will enable local authorities to impose the same restrictions, while also consulting on other issues in the vicinity.

I think that all that will do the job, but I completely recognise that Members need to be persuaded, which is why I invite them to consider the evidence carefully.

[Julie Hilling]

I may be pre-empting the Minister’s comments, but another concern is about prioritising and resourcing. In talking about the gamut of antisocial behaviour, what priority and resources will be given to this area?

[Mr Heath]

That is difficult for me to answer, because it will be in the hands of local authorities in combination with the police. I can only express the hope that such behaviour will be a key area, but we will not give it a greater priority just by giving it a different name. Either it will be seen as something that local authorities and constabularies need to address, or it will not. I hope and expect that local authorities will address it because of all the cases that hon. Members have recited, which we all recognise as extremely serious. If they do not do so, I hope that they will swiftly be reminded by their constituents that they need to give that matter proper care. It would be meaningless for me to give her a blanket assurance, other than to say that that is certainly my expectation.

Another issue that has repeatedly been raised, with several Members covering common ground, is consolidation of legislation. I perfectly understand the argument that it is nice to have a neat legislative bundle with everything that relates to a particular subject. The fact is that English and Welsh law is not like that, and never has been. Consolidation is quite difficult to achieve, and we have sometimes found that consolidated legislation misses out important elements of former legislation. To be perfectly honest, I am not convinced that the substantial resource required to consolidate legislation is worth it, because practitioners perfectly well understand the legislative tools at their disposal.

We should instead concentrate on consolidating our approach to, and our strategy for dealing with, dog control and welfare issues. That is different from getting the legislation into some sort of legal Napoleonic code. For instance, when we considered consolidation, we found that the provisions are reasonably accessible and that there is no great confusion. It certainly has not been brought to my attention that there are significant confusions in existing legislation.

If we consolidated, would we retain all the civil and criminal options currently available? Some people ask why on earth we rely on legislation from 140 or 150 years ago, but such legislation is sometimes a good basis for dealing with illegal activity. Many practitioners have told us that it would be a great mistake to consolidate the Dogs Act 1871 into current legislation because it is very useful and covers some areas that are not obviously covered by other legislation.

I hear the arguments for consolidation, but, first, we could not have introduced the measures before the House in the time scale available—that is important, because this is urgent—and secondly, it would not necessarily achieve anything. I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore that we must ensure that we provide perhaps a single set of guidance—I shall talk to my noble Friend Lord de Mauley about whether that is appropriate—so that everybody knows what applies, how it applies and how best to use it to achieve Parliament’s objectives.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. To give him some comfort, when I was in his position and I was asked to consolidate legislation, wise civil servants always said, “Keep well away from it. If you do that, we will not be able to do a dozen other important things, because of the timing.” If that is his approach, I urge him to consider how to bring forth a more consolidated strategy across Government, and not just have a piecemeal approach. All the issues that we have talked about show the clear necessity of having a joined-up approach—not just in Whitehall, but in local government and agencies—to deal with a range of measures. If we are not going to have consolidated legislation, we certainly need a joined-up strategy that is down in black and white.

[Mr Heath]

Having now conceded the fact that when the hon. Gentleman was in my position in government he received exactly the same advice about consolidated legislation, which he has just called for, he has now mirrored my advice to him that there is a case for a consolidated strategy. That is a clever bit of opposition—he first asks for something on which he knows that the answer will be no, and he then, when I give him something on which the answer is yes, asks me to do it.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will you do it?

[Mr Heath]

I will certainly discuss with my noble Friend whether the matter commends itself to him, and he will need to work on it with other Departments. I can see the strength of the sentiment behind being very clear about how we bring together holistically the various elements relating to dealing with dogs. I simply reject the view that we should spend a lot of parliamentary time on trying to fit together various bits of legislation that do not fit well together, some of which have criminal standards of proof and some of which have civil.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

It would be a great test for the Minister’s civil servants.

[Mr Heath]

It might be a good examination question—we sometimes refer such matters to the Law Commission for their erudite musings—but I do not particularly want my Department to spend time on that at the moment. I am not being flippant; I am simply saying that that is not the most pressing thing, because it would not improve the effectiveness of what we are doing.

On microchipping, which several Members mentioned, I am grateful for the support expressed for what we are doing. It is absolutely essential to get it right and that implementation is successful. We are working closely with everybody who has a direct interest, such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, local authorities, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We will ensure that, as far as possible, we get the message across to the great bulk of the public that they now need to do microchipping. We are working with database operators and the microchip manufacturers and implanters to address standards and ensure quality and consistency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made the point that the onus is on owners to maintain the data on the microchip. It will be an offence not only not to microchip a dog, but, just as for a vehicle registration, to have inaccurate information on the registered database.

We have addressed the issue that some dog owners do not have much financial resource available and may see microchipping as a difficult cost to bear: free microchipping is accessible through Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Blue Cross centres—35 in total—and some local authorities also offer free or discounted microchipping. I am grateful to everybody working on that, and to the Kennel Club for providing free microchip scanners to all local authorities.

This is a good opportunity to promote national microchipping month. Its launch a week ago was most successful. It was hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who is not in the Chamber at the moment. We are progressing on the issue in what I hope is an effective way.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The Cotswolds.

[Mr Heath]

I am sorry; I am behind the times. It was Tewkesbury. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that we would love to move more quickly, but all the advice says that we are moving at the most sensible rate to get to our objective. We will ensure that microchipping starts with puppies and is extended to the whole dog population. In my view, the most important thing is to get it right and have something that is usable in tracing back to their owners not just all the dogs that go missing each year, but those that cause nuisance. Hopefully, we will be able to connect them to an owner rather more easily than at the moment.

Of course, some owners will not microchip, just like the huge number of people mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton who ignored dog licensing procedures when they were in place. There will be some who will simply not want to do it, but at least now there will be an offence. When a dog is found, if it does not have a microchip and we can trace it to an owner, that owner will have committed an offence. No licensing system is perfect, but this will certainly go a long way.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for his detailed responses. I do not want to pre-empt subsequent Committee consideration of the Home Office Bill, but if a microchipped dog identified to have been part of an attack on a companion dog or an individual is traced back to an owner, what will the repercussions be?

[Mr Heath]

That pre-empts not only the legislation, but the secondary legislation that we are introducing, although of course we will answer in due course. It will be an offence, so there will be a penalty. The offence, in the first instance, will be failure to keep the information up to date, but if the information is there and we can trace the dog back to the owner, it will depend what the dog has done and the circumstances.

I should mention an important point. Having discussed the circumstances, I should give some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) that the courts will be able to take into account the circumstances of the case. We will have to return to the discussion about what comprises curtilage of a property, what a dwelling is and so on.

There is a difficulty of definition. We certainly want to deal with the issue of the postman or the political canvasser who gets bitten by a dog out in the yard or garden, where they have perfectly legitimate business, but we also do not want to penalise the householder whose dog is doing its job of protecting property against an intruder who has no business there. Getting that balance right is critical. When someone is within a house, it can reasonably be assumed that unless they have been invited in, they must give a strong argument for why they have legitimate business in the house rather than being an intruder.

It is different for a garden, or sometimes even a shed. A child going to pick up a football that has been kicked into a garden should not be set upon by a dangerous dog. They may be an intruder, but they are nevertheless not a burglar or anyone with malicious intent. A public interest test must be satisfied before a prosecution can be brought. I hope that the guidance to the prosecuting authority will make that distinction clear. It might satisfy the difficulty that Members have correctly spotted with the definition of what exactly comprises the area that we are discussing.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend has been speaking for a long time and has given us a huge amount of detailed information. Before he sits down, will he comment on the divisive issue of the feline and canine sector council, which is dividing the dog world and making dogs’ fur fly?

[Mr Heath]

I most certainly will. I have the unprecedented benefit of having rather longer than usual to reply to the debate. I hoped that I was making use of it to provide the answers that hon. Members wanted, so I apologise to my hon. Friend if I was taking too long to get to the issue he raised. I have one more thing to discuss first, if I may—dog breeding—because it was raised by a number of hon. Members.

It is absolutely right that breeding is a key element of education, apart from anything else, which is exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Ogmore. People must know, first of all, what is and is not appropriate, and the consequences of breeding puppies. Buyers also need to know whether they are buying a breed that needs a 5-mile run every morning, so they do not keep it in a flat on the 17th floor. They need to know—the hon. Gentleman will know—how adorable a Jack Russell might or might not be before they buy one, and what special requirements it might have.

A sort of ignorant cruelty can be involved when people buy the wrong breed of dog in the wrong circumstances and then find that they cannot manage it. That is sad, because they probably bought the dog for unimpeachable reasons—they love the look of the dog and its nature—but they simply cannot look after it. Education is important.

Another important point was raised by the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth about the threshold for needing a licence. I would love to be able to give him an absolutely explicit response, so that he could say, “Yes, that’s the answer.” It is not as simple as that, as is so often the case with licensing. Although there is a five-litter cut-off for what is, in any circumstances, considered a business, it is for the local authority to determine who is in the business of breeding and selling dogs when it comes to smaller numbers of litters a year.

There is no definitive term that has the sanction of statutory law behind it; it is for the courts to agree or not agree with the local authority. Actually, there are a variety of circumstances in which that sort of decision comes before the court: there is a degree of flexibility, and trading standards officials must satisfy the court that what they are dealing with is a business in the legislative sense. One litter produced in a 12-month period is unlikely to be considered a business; five litters almost certainly will be, but local authorities have a number of tests that they are asked to apply to determine whether somebody is trading. I will not go into them now, because that is for another Department to determine, but those are the criteria used, and they have the support of case law, if not statute law, in deciding whether somebody falls into that category.

I do not know whether I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth; I suspect that I have not, because it is a vague response. If he is not satisfied, I ask him to talk to his local trading standards officials about whether they feel they have the right legal criteria in place to do their job.

[George Eustice]

The point I was making is that there would be clarity if the number was simply two litters. Local authorities could work to that. The situation that the Minister outlined means that if a local authority has concerns about a breeder producing three litters a year, it must then go through a legal process. The breeder could use as a defence the fact that there were fewer than five litters. Then there is an expensive, difficult legal process, which does not incentivise local authorities to enforce standards in those areas.

[Mr Heath]

I do not think that it would be a defence to say that there were fewer than five litters. It would be about the circumstances of the breeding programme and the puppies being put on sale. I hear what my hon. Friend says. I will take the matter back to my hon. Friends in Departments with responsibility for that area to see whether clarification is necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds set out clearly why he is concerned about the canine and feline sector council. Let me be absolutely clear that it is not a Government organisation; it is independent of Government. I hope that immediately sets some of his concerns to rest. However, as an independent sectoral body, it could be a useful vehicle that pulls together the views of the sector and feeds them into the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England, which again is not a regulatory body. It simply provides advice for Ministers from the perspective of the users of welfare legislation in the widest sense. Therefore, what we are talking about is not a regulatory or a policy formation body, but a conduit for information, hopefully with the benefit of proper discussion within the sector.

The Kennel Club is one of the bodies represented, and the Dog Advisory Council, which my hon. Friend mentioned, has been invited on to the sector council. I hope that Sheila Crispin will take part, because I would certainly like her views as well. The one thing I stress again is that this is not a regulatory body set up for the purposes of excluding anybody or indeed including one sector to the disbenefit of others. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I hear what the Minister says, but it seems that the support council was set up with undue haste and very little consultation. Perhaps he will tell us how the chairman was chosen. Was he chosen by open advertisement, for example?

[Mr Heath]

I cannot answer that because the council is not a body of Government; it is independent of Government. Perhaps my hon. Friend needs to have a discussion on this matter with Michael Seals, the chair of the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England. I am happy to try to arrange that for him if it would help. It would be wrong for me as a Minister to assume responsibility for something that is not within my control, but I am, none the less, happy to try to oil the machinery that allows him to get the answers he wants.

I have, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds reminded me, spoken for some time now.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

Obviously, the hon. Member for Ogmore feels that I have not spoken for long enough, so I give way.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister is being generous. I do not want to take time away from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton who will be responding to the debate, but I am not sure whether I missed the Minister addressing the question of cattle, horses, llamas and alpacas. Will he explain the Government’s current thinking on them?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I did miss that out. At the moment, there is no evidence to support the necessity of extending the definition of livestock in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to include camelids. Obviously, we will keep the matter under review. I do not wish to trivialise the matter, but, in my experience, camelids generally are quite capable of looking after themselves in most circumstances and would not take kindly to a dog yapping round them. If there is evidence that they need adequate protection, I am happy to provide that.

I reassure hon. Members that we do not need specific legislation if there is an emerging problem, because there is recourse to justice through the Dogs Act 1871, which I mentioned earlier, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Indeed, the new antisocial behaviour measures that we are introducing could be brought to bear as well. We will continue to talk to all the organisations that are involved. If there is a strong view that further protection is needed, we will give it consideration. At the moment, though, we do not feel that a case has been made. I absolutely agree that we do not want a new prescribed list; that is not the way to do this sort of legislation. The generic protections that are in place are more useful than anything else.

I hope I have answered exhaustively all the questions that have been raised—looking at the exhausted faces around the room I think I probably have done so. This has been an extremely useful debate. I thank the Committee for its care in introducing the report and the valuable points it raises. I hope that during the proceedings on the legislation before the House we will be able to tease out yet more details of what is proposed, and that at the end of the day we will have in place exactly the sort of holistic legislation that people have been calling for and which is crucial to deal with the small minority of dog owners who simply are not up to the task.

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (Civil Fines)

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on securing the debate. I am pleased to see his colleagues, the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) here. I know that they share a common concern about the operation of gangmasters in their constituencies.

It is important that I open by saying how significant the operation of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is. We need it to work for precisely the reasons that the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire set out: to ensure that very vulnerable people are not exploited by criminals—let us be clear, they are criminals—who wish to use the opportunities that arise from people coming from overseas and finding themselves in a vulnerable situation.

I would like to respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but also to say a few words about the proposed improvements to the operation of the GLA, which has done and continues to do a great deal of valuable work, which most people recognise, to protect and enforce the rights of vulnerable workers. Many reviews over recent years, including the farming regulation task force and forestry regulation task force, have looked at the GLA’s work, and there is general recognition among stakeholders that it has been effective in improving working conditions in the regulated sectors.

In recognising the highly valuable work the GLA has done, the reviews have also shown that there is room for improvement, so there is an opportunity to make the GLA a modern enforcement agency that better targets criminal activities, while applying a light touch elsewhere. That is one of the thrusts of the work we have done. Part of the consultation that is happening at the moment is about how we can take our foot off the pedal in areas where it is not needed, to concentrate resources on the areas that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to the attention of the House.

Through the employment theme of the red tape challenge, the continuing need for the GLA’s work was endorsed, alongside the need to bring forward measures to ensure that it can become more focused on the worst excesses of worker exploitation in the sectors it regulates. As the hon. Gentleman said, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), announced, via a written statement to Parliament a year ago, the range of reforms that would come forward.

The GLA will increase joint working with other agencies involved in stamping out serious organised crime activities, including human trafficking, money laundering, tax evasion and other serious organised crimes. To enable that increased focus on the serious criminal elements in the supply of labour to the food and food processing sector, the GLA will modify its processes and deploy its resources in a way that relieves the burden of regulation from highly compliant businesses, but targets criminals through improved intelligence gathering.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

In Carnforth in my constituency, the Morecambe bay hybrid fishery order is being drafted at the moment. Can the Minister assist the legislation to go through quicker? It will enable the licensing and policing of the bay for shellfish farmers and harvesters and cockle pickers.

[Mr Heath]

I am not sure that I am in a position to help with what is presumably private legislation, in that it is independent of Government processes, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Having such an order in place would clearly benefit his constituents, which is why he has raised it today. I do not blame him for doing so.

Before that intervention, I was suggesting that in areas where the experience of GLA enforcement over the years has shown that there is less need for regulation, we can safely remove those currently licensed activities from the scope of regulation and redeploy the resources elsewhere. My Department launched a public consultation in April this year on proposed reforms to GLA operations, as the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire said. That consultation includes proposals to exclude some activities that currently require a licence from the scope of licensing, where evidence suggests that there is a low risk of exploitation of workers. That proposal would remove about 150 businesses from licensing, saving those businesses about £60,000 and enabling GLA resources to be deployed elsewhere to tackle serious abuses.

Changes are proposed to the size and constitution of the GLA board, to make it smaller and better able to provide clear strategic direction for the organisation. The consultation also looks at the scope to introduce civil penalties—exactly the point that the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire made—into the range of enforcement tools that the GLA has available.

The GLA is a designated regulator under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008—the so-called RES Act—which permits the use of civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution in certain circumstances. The point that the hon. Gentleman made, and he quite properly set out exactly why this is an obstacle for us, is that the sectors that the GLA regulates are overwhelmingly made up of small and medium-sized enterprises.

The scope for use of civil sanctions in the RES Act is constrained by Government policy in that area, and I recognise immediately that what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do is to challenge another Department’s policy. I think that is implicit in what he says, but for the benefit of the record I want to state that Government policy in that area was clearly set out in a written statement to Parliament last November, by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon).

That statement made it clear that, in general, SMEs should not be subject to monetary fines because of the risk of smaller companies feeling less equipped to challenge the basis for such fines. That is very clear Government policy and if I wished to engage in a dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks on the issue, we would need to establish why this matter should be the exception to that rule.

[Stephen Barclay]

The crux of the matter is in two of the words that the Minister just said: “in general”. My colleagues on the Government Benches very much support the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. We understand the difficulties of the red tape, but it is this “in general”. What we are saying is that in this instance there is a distinction between the criminality of gangmasters operating against vulnerable people—the raids are revealing some horrendous and immoral issues—and the small business owner suffering from red tape. It is that distinction that I ask the Minister to take away, from a cross-departmental point of view, and take up with colleagues.

[Mr Heath]

Of course I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and I understand why he is bringing the matter forward in the context of his constituency interest, but I have to say that where there is criminality I believe that criminal sanctions should apply. I want to make it absolutely clear that, if the evidence is there, there should not be the slightest hesitation in bringing a criminal action. The question of civil sanctions is, in a sense, a reserve position for situations in which a criminal prosecution is inappropriate.

[Stephen Barclay]

The Minister is generous in giving way a second time. The facts speak for themselves—only 15 prosecutions. For criminal prosecutions a higher standard of evidence is required, and they are therefore more difficult. They take longer and are more expensive, and we are talking about an organisation with resource constraints.

For the measure to work, the Minister needs the resource. Perhaps I can take him back to his earlier remarks. Yes, in the consultation we are reducing the board—frankly, big deal; it is pretty irrelevant—but how many investigators from the GLA are covering Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Lincolnshire? The figures I had, off the record, were very small. Will the Minister share the figures with the House?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not have the figures with me and will, therefore, happily write to him to set out the position.

I will, in fact, go further than that. I am due in East Anglia tomorrow and I plan to meet with the GLA to discuss exactly how it operates and how we can help it to operate, so it seems entirely appropriate that we look at the resourcing issues. It is not small beer to redirect resources from areas where they are deployed to no great benefit because they are being used to license people who have not the slightest intention of breaking the law, and have the track record to show that they do not. It seems entirely appropriate to redirect the resource to deal with the bad guys, against whom we need to collect evidence.

I take the point about the difference between criminal and civil standards of proof. That is, of course, a factor, but let me be absolutely clear: I want more criminal prosecutions. I want to see more people brought before a court for their abuses and I want them then to suffer the further penalty, where appropriate, of proceeds of crime restitution, so that we get back the money that the gangmasters have acquired through illicit means. We also need to make it plain that they are not wanted in our agricultural industry. We must deal with them effectively.

I do not quarrel at all with the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to ensure that we do this right, and I am working within an overall Government policy that is resistant to the view that civil sanctions are the appropriate means of dealing with small and medium-sized businesses. That is my difficulty. It is not an insurmountable difficulty, but I need to persuade others in Government of the case.

Some provisions of the RES Act might be useful to the operation of the GLA. We have invited views from stakeholders on the usefulness of the measures, and the public consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs remains open until 21 June. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman, and others who feel strongly about the matter, to ensure that their views are fed into that consultation process. When we respond to the consultation in due course, it will be helpful for us clearly to understand, from colleagues who represent areas where many labourers work in such schemes, what the problems are and how we should best deal with them.

As I said, I am very happy to look at the matter in the round and to recognise the strength of the arguments, but I come back to my basic premise, from which I will not resile: the key change will be to redirect resources as the GLA is asking us to. That seems to make sense, but obviously we must wait for the consultation process to end to see whether others agree that we should redirect resources in the key areas of serious offences and organised crime.

The GLA itself has been at the forefront of the reform programme, and last week published its three-year strategy for protecting vulnerable workers, which emphasises an intelligence-led, risk-based approach, working closely in partnership with other agencies. The hon. Gentleman will know that the GLA is active in many parts of the country, including in the constituencies of the hon. Gentlemen here today: North East Cambridgeshire, Morecambe and Lunesdale, and Peterborough.

The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire mentioned Operation Pheasant, a multi-agency taskforce set up to tackle ongoing worker issues in the area. Three people have been arrested on suspicion of human trafficking offences in Wisbech, and a diverse team of agencies has been assembled to assist with the operation, with partners including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Home Office, trading standards, Fenland district council and Cambridgeshire fire and rescue.

I want to know more about the matter at first hand, which is one of the reasons why I am going to East Anglia tomorrow to talk directly to GLA officers and partner agencies involved in the joint operation. If they tell me that there are clear areas in which we have still not dealt effectively with the issues they want us to address, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that I will act on that and take their advice in developing Government policy.

I believe that the package of reforms that we are taking forward with the GLA will make the authority better able to protect vulnerable workers, while easing burdens on the majority of businesses, which are compliant and law-abiding. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given us the opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I suspect that the debate has been the best possible pre-briefing for the Minister’s visit tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

Pollinators and Pesticides

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. Our report clearly states that there is no one solution and that we need, as he rightly says, a whole new systemic approach. The core of our report is that we need to get the balance right between scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, but there are very many issues that relate to all this.

We have had further support from many members of the general public and concerned interest groups, not least Bedfordshire Beekeepers Association, which said:

“Your work has been an inspirational example of democratic scrutiny in action…we hope that you will be able to hold government to account and influence policy making both at national and EU level.”

This is exactly what we are doing today and intend to continue doing. This debate is by no means our only follow-up to the report. We are raising the issue today to see how the many things that need to be done can get done, with the direction of the Government.

The Committee decided to conduct our inquiry because the available evidence indicated that insect pollinators have experienced serious population declines in the UK in recent years. For example, we heard—this is quite shocking—that two thirds to three quarters of insect pollinator species are declining in the UK. Indeed, the 2013 report “State of Nature” assessed 178 bee species in the UK and found that half were in decline. For the benefit of the House, I should explain that insect pollinators include not only honey bees and wild bees but other insects such as hoverflies, moths and butterflies. At the moment, the honey bee is the sentinel species for all insect pollinators, which means that most scientific studies involve bees, but given the biological differences between the various insect pollinators, it is vital that the Government monitor a wider range of species. I hope that this is an uncontroversial point on which the Government will agree with my Committee.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

indicated assent.

[Joan Walley]

I am very pleased to see the Minister nodding. I refer him to our recommendation 13: “Defra must”—I stress “must”—

“introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a broad range of wild insect pollinator species to inform policy making.”

We felt that that is the bottom line and the starting point of what now needs to be done. As we went through our deliberations and came to reach our decisions, we endeavoured to find as much common ground among members of the Committee as we could before we turned to the issue of neonicotinoids.

Let me move on to the question of why insect populations might be declining. I want to make it clear at the outset that the health of insect pollinators is defined by a range of factors, including not only pesticides but urbanisation, loss of habitat, agricultural intensification and climate change; obviously, weather patterns affect things as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point about commercial confidentiality and the lack of transparency. We hear a lot at the moment about lobbying and related issues, but if the agri-chemical industry wishes to make claims about the value of its products, it must open up the evidence to full scrutiny. There is no case for hiding behind so-called “commercial confidentiality”. That prevents the open, transparent and informed policy making that is so badly needed. I agree with the hon. Lady and her point relates to one of the recommendations in our report.

When the weight of peer-reviewed evidence rendered untenable DEFRA’s position on the need for unequivocal evidence, it claimed that it would commission the Food and Environment Research Agency to conduct a realistic field study to resolve the matter. That study was not peer reviewed and it was, as one witness to our inquiry presciently pointed out, clearly too small to provide conclusive results. It was undermined by fundamental errors in its execution, such as placing the various hives that were used in the experiments outside on different days of the year.

Our view on the study, which was that we should not accept it, was confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority on Tuesday, when it identified the same weaknesses as we did.

[Mr Heath]

indicated assent.

[Joan Walley]

I am glad to see the Minister nodding his head. The conclusion was that there was no reason for EFSA to change its view.

DEFRA told us that its pesticides policy was underpinned by the precautionary principle. I fear that in this case, that statement of intent has not been matched by DEFRA’s actions. Interestingly, the private sector appears to be more willing than DEFRA to implement precautions. In the course of our inquiry, we heard that major do-it-yourself chains such as B&Q, Wickes and Homebase were withdrawing neonicotinoids from sale for domestic use, and supermarket chains such as the Co-operative have prohibited their suppliers from using neonicotinoids in anything other than exceptional circumstances. I also welcome the press release from Waitrose, which states that it is looking to do the same in respect of flowering crops.

As our report was taking shape and we were having involved discussions among ourselves, we had to extend the length of our inquiry to take account of developments elsewhere, because it was clear that we were being overtaken by events such as the European Commission’s regulatory action. Although the growing weight of published scientific research did not impress DEFRA, it led the EC to take action. The EC is responsible for licensing chemicals for use in European agriculture. It instructed EFSA to draw up new risk assessments for neonicotinoids in relation to bees. The revised risk assessments led the EC to propose measured regulatory action, with a two-year EU-wide moratorium on the use of three of the five neonicotinoids on crops that are attractive to bees.

The EC proposal was put to a qualified majority vote on 15 March. As we all know, the vote was inconclusive and the UK abstained. The hung outcome of the vote allowed the EC to implement the appeal procedure, which led to a second vote on 29 April. I understand that between 15 March and 29 April, there was intensive lobbying and negotiation in Europe. Indeed, I went out personally to present our report to the European Commissioner. Finally, the EC amended its initial proposal. It recognised the need to delay the introduction of a moratorium to allow the seed supply chain time to adjust, which was a recommendation of our report. That is an example of how my Committee focused on the practical outcomes for the agricultural sector. We did not want to make any knee-jerk recommendations and we wanted there to be time for the matter to be properly understood and acted on.

In the second vote, on 29 April, the UK shifted from abstention to active resistance by voting against the proposed moratorium, despite the concessions made by the European Commission. However, countries such as Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands all voted for the moratorium, which will consequently be introduced across the EU on 1 December 2013.

What effects will the two-year moratorium have on UK agriculture? First, I want to highlight that when neonicotinoids were banned for use on maize in Italy, there was no negative effect on yield. Secondly, the moratorium will prevent farmers from using neonicotinoids on

“crops that are attractive to bees”,

which of course excludes sugar beet, crops grown in glass houses and winter wheat; it is quite a proportionate measure. Thirdly, neonicotinoids are a relatively recent innovation. Oilseed rape, for example, was a viable UK crop before the introduction of neonicotinoids in the mid-‘90s.

Some have argued that a moratorium on neonicotinoids will lead farmers to spray greater quantities of other more environmentally harmful pesticides, such as organophosphates and pyrethroids. However, it is open to DEFRA to ensure that that is not the case. It is clearly in the interests of the environment, food security, minimising resistance among pests and maximising agricultural incomes that the least possible amount of pesticides is used in agricultural production. Indeed, in talks I have had with different bodies they have said that such a moratorium will mean that there must be a focus on what to do and what alternative proposals to come up with, so that we incentivise a more healthy approach to crops.

To that end, integrated pest management is a broad approach to plant protection that minimises pesticide use and encourages natural pest control mechanisms. By 1 January 2014, all pesticide users will be required to adopt IPM under the European directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. If UK farmers practise IPM, the argument that a moratorium on neonicotinoids will lead to unfavourable environmental outcomes does not hold. I believe that was very much a deciding factor in the Committee’s reaching its unanimous decision.

DEFRA does not appear to have prioritised compliance with the directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. The directive states:

“Member states should adopt…quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce…the impact of pesticide use on the environment.”

However, a DEFRA official dismissed such targets as “meaningless”, which sits uneasily with the Department’s stated commitments to integrated pest management. Indeed, our report was halted or delayed because the Government were slow to make a full response to that European directive.

Other than the recommendations on the moratorium of certain neonicotinoids, the importance of monitoring the health of pollinators and the introduction of integrated pest management, many other detailed issues arise from the Committee’s report that relate to risk assessment and risk management. Those include reforms involving the European food safety authority, where our Government, should they wish to, could take the lead, CAP reform and recognising the importance of less secrecy and greater transparency in the risk assessment trials undertaken by the agrochemical industry—the point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to delay their response to our report, which was due this week, but I look forward to their detailed response on the work we have carried out. For now, however, events have moved quickly and DEFRA did not take our advice when the issue was raised by the European Commission.

In conclusion, I have three questions for the Minister. First, I believe DEFRA has said it will commission further field research on neonicotinoids and bees. Will that research be published in a journal and be peer reviewed? Will the Minister consider commissioning the British scientists who participated in the Gill and Whitehorn studies, rather than FERA, whose previous report was discredited? Is it DEFRA policy to reject all laboratory studies—and, by extension, scientific method—as a basis for action? Secondly, how will DEFRA ensure the effective implementation of the sustainable use of pesticide directive? Thirdly, will the Minister explain what changed between the first EU vote on 15 March, when the UK abstained, to the second EU vote, on 29 April, when the UK voted against a moratorium?

The UK public are concerned about bees and pollinators. When I raised this at Prime Minister’s Question Time, he stressed the importance of the precautionary principle. As we look forward to the summer, people’s minds will be on gardening and planting, and farmers’ minds will be on planting and harvesting. It is critical that we hear from the Government on how they will respond to the EU moratorium.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I begin by echoing other Members’ tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for initiating the debate. Her Committee has published an important and powerful report on the subject and I commend all members of the Environmental Audit Committee for producing it. I am sure the Minister has pored over the document in detail and will give us his thoughts on it later this afternoon.

Outstanding contributions have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). As usually happens when Front Benchers wind up these debates, we tend to be left with only the task of repeating many of the points that have already been made. It reminds me of the old saying that at any meeting everything that has to be said has already been said, but not everyone has said it yet. So I shall plough on regardless.

The debate around neonicotinoids has brought the decline of bee and pollinator populations into sharp focus. The profound effects this will have on the future of horticulture, agriculture and the wider environment cannot be overstated. Bees and other pollinating insects play a vital role in our food supply, providing essential pollination services estimated to be worth £440 million to UK agriculture each year, as well as enriching our natural environment and biodiversity.

Two months ago, in April, I convened what I ambitiously entitled a bee health summit, which was attended by leading academics, environmental groups, biotechnology companies, farming unions and representatives from leading apiary organisations. I apologise to the Minister for forgetting to invite him. I am sure his contributions would have been worth while. Predictably, there was a lack of agreement on the topical issue of a ban or moratorium on neonicotinoids, and the evidential base was hotly contested. It is clear that pesticides currently play an essential part in achieving high levels of crop production in the UK and elsewhere, providing affordable food for consumers and contributing to our food security. Getting the right balance between the benefits of natural pollination services and the benefits of pesticides to crop production is crucial.

At the summit, there were passionate calls to support the use of the precautionary principle, which have been echoed in the debate today, to protect against further decline while additional evidence is gathered and analysed. These calls were countered by some bee health experts, bee organisations and, yes, the companies that produce neonicotinoids, which took a more cautious line based on the lack of any assessment of the impact of a ban on farmers’ use of alternative pesticide products and the impact on UK food production and food security.

Such divides are not reserved to the UK, and a split in opinion was also observed at an EU level. However, now that the Commission has approved an EU-wide moratorium on the three types of neonicotinoids beginning in December 2013, it is vital that the Government work with all parties concerned to ensure that any negative, unintended consequences on bee health—for example, the hon. Member for Stroud referred to the wider use of spray insecticides—do not materialise.

What plans do the Government have in place to support farmers in the build-up to and during the moratorium? Does the Minister agree that the moratorium provides an excellent opportunity to help farmers and growers to adopt integrated pest management and reduce the use of pesticides in line with the Government’s own pesticides action plan? Does the Minister agree with the Society of Biology, which has pushed for adequate and stable investment in agricultural research and environmental monitoring, in order to avoid periodic crises where sufficient evidence has not been available for necessary policy decisions? Will he outline how the Government will take advantage of the breathing space afforded by the moratorium to bridge the current gaps in scientific knowledge on the effects that neonicotinoids have on bees and other pollinators?

It is crucial that a monitoring programme is put in place to assess the full impact of a moratorium and the effect that it will have on wild and managed bees and on farmers and their crops. Will the Minister assure the House that an effective monitoring programme will be put in place? I am sure that he, like me, is aware of significant concerns raised in the scientific community that two years will not be sufficient to monitor the effect on bee health of a moratorium on neonicotinoids, not least because of the multiple variables in the natural and farmed environments.

[Mr Heath]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

This has been an extremely good debate and I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and her Committee for their report. She knows that we have had a short delay in responding to her, for the precise reasons that she had a short delay in producing the report. The circumstances have been changing quickly and we want to get it right, so I apologise to her and her Committee for that. My noble friend Lord de Mauley is responsible for this area, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that it falls to me to respond to the debate in this House.

I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) for his balanced remarks, which showed that this is a complex issue. I am interested in it, not least because as Minister for agriculture I know that bees and pollinators are crucial. I cannot underline sufficiently how important pollinators are to agriculture and horticulture, so of course I have that interest.

I also have an enormous personal interest in the issue. I spoke from the Opposition Benches about bees for a very long time. I spoke on the subject right back in June 1998, when I said:

“We need a step change in investment in the investigation of bee disease if we are to stem a worldwide phenomenon that is lapping at our doorstep and has the potential to become a crisis, both for the insect population and in economic terms”.—[Official Report, 17 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 204WH.]

That is what I said in 1998, so people are now free to quote that back at me, but I meant it. We were arguing then in the context of very little work at Government level on bees. It took the best part of a decade before we pressed the previous Government to start taking the issue of bees and pollinators seriously, which they did: we now have the national bee unit and I think we now need to go one step further in our approach.

I welcome the opportunity to highlight what the Government have been doing in relation both to pollinators and pesticides and to our future plans. We take this issue extremely seriously. It is crucial. Contrary to what some have said, specifically in relation to neonicotinoid insecticides, we have kept the evidence under close and open-minded scrutiny and we continue to do so. We will restrict the use of insecticides. Obviously, neonicotinoids are now dealt with under the moratorium, but we will deal with others as well, if the evidence shows that there is a need to do so. I will come back to that point later.

The hon. Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Glasgow South pointed out that pollinators face many other challenges. It is critical that one issue, such as the use of particular pesticides, does not dominate the debate, because so many other individual factors, when taken together, have a complex effect on our pollinator population.

[Joan Walley]

The Minister has said that the Government will take action if the evidence shows that they need to. Will he explain how that relates to the moratorium delivered by the European Commission?

[Mr Heath]

I will come back to the specific issue of neonicotinoids in a moment. The moratorium is in place, so we will, of course, fully comply with it. We do not not comply with decisions of that kind. I will return to the evidence, because it is a critical issue.

I repeat that bees are essential to the health of our natural environment and the prosperity of our farming industry. The “Biodiversity 2020” document has been mentioned. We have set ourselves the challenge of achieving an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and preventing further human induced extinctions of known threatened species. We have put a landscape scale approach to biodiversity conservation at the heart of “Biodiversity 2020”. It is vital that that approach is effective in helping to conserve our most threatened species.

Nature improvement areas are beginning to make a difference for species on the ground. The 12 Government-funded NIAs are by no means the sum total of our ambitions. We want to see that approach rolled out more widely by enthusiasts across the country. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is seeing exactly that in her city. We want that to be extended and it is clearly already happening.

We want to make environmental stewardship more effective. As the House knows, we are in the process of negotiating CAP reform. It is not clear what the outcomes will be. We do not know the extent to which greening measures will be in pillar 1 or pillar 2, or the exact recipe that will emerge from our decisions on agri-environmental schemes that derive from pillar 2 or voluntary modulation. This matter is a key consideration in that context and I will certainly be pressing for it in the outcome.

[Nia Griffith]

The European Scrutiny Committee has requested a debate on CAP reform. Will the Minister say when that is likely to be scheduled?

[Mr Heath]

I am responsible for a large number of things in my Department, but the scheduling of House business is not one of them. In my previous post, I might have been able to give the hon. Lady an answer, but in my current post I cannot. To be honest, now would not be the best time to have that debate because we are just reaching what we hope will be a conclusive meeting of the Council of Ministers. After that, we will have a much clearer idea of the outcomes and how they will be effected in the UK.

We recognise that there is still a need for targeted conservation action for our most threatened species. Natural England’s species recovery programme is designed to help with projects to support priority species, such as the short-haired bumblebee. Many Members have made the point that we are talking not just about the honey bee, but about many other native bee species and other non-bee pollinators. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley has announced that he is considering the development of a more holistic health strategy to cover all pollinators. He has been meeting interested parties, such as Friends of the Earth, to explore what added value that approach could bring.

We will continue with our wider work to understand and counter the various factors that harm bees and other pollinators. DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser and Ministers have met a number of interested parties to discuss that work, including non-governmental organisations. We will seek to host discussions with other stakeholders over the summer.

As I have said, there are many things that we do not yet understand about the reductions in pollinator populations. There are many major factors, including the varroa mite, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), foulbrood and the undoubted effects of climate change and environmental and ecological changes in this country. That is why some experts are very unclear as to the quantifiable effect of pesticides. The British Beekeepers Association keeps an open mind on that, as do we. We want to know what the connections are and to see the evidence.

Let us return to the issue of pesticides. As we heard in the debate, the European Commission recently adopted a ban on the use of three neonicotinoids on crops that are “attractive to bees” and on some cereal crops. The ban also covers amateur use, so the Government do not need to bring in an extension.

It is documented that we did not support action, the reason being that we had urged the Commission to complete a full assessment of the available scientific evidence, taking into account new field research that we had carried out. Let us talk about that because it is a serious issue. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North asked whether we reject laboratory evidence, but of course we do not; it is extraordinarily important. However, we would like some coherence between what we see in the laboratory and what we see in field trials. That does not make field trials the only thing that matter, but such a correlation is not presently there.

From laboratory tests we are clear that neonicotinoids have a toxicity for bees. We do not know, however, what the exposure is in a natural environment, and the two things go together. Many things are toxic but do not create a deleterious effect in the field simply because the exposure is too low. That is where we must do a lot more work, and that is exactly where we are commissioning it. We were clear that the work done by FERA was by no means a satisfactory field trial. We never pretended that it was; it had to be done quickly to meet a timetable—set not by us, but by others—to give at least some indication of whether that correlation was there. Incidentally, I will not accept criticism of FERA scientists on that basis. They are extremely good and do their work in a totally dispassionate and independent way on the best scientific principles. They were asked to do a quick piece of work—which they did—and that is why it was not peer reviewed, as would be normal practice. We felt it was important to put the matter in the hands of the Commission, which was about to make a decision on a highly contentious subject.

I make no apologies for recognising that there is, of course, a strong imperative to look at evidence that suggests a toxic consequence and, where possible, to take a precautionary approach to these matters. However, a precautionary approach is not as two-dimensional as sometimes suggested and must take into account the consequences of the action in question. The hon. Member for Glasgow South mentioned the economic consequences, and of course that is a factor, although not an overriding one.

Of far more concern is a point also raised by hon. Members about alternative pesticides that are fully legal under EU law and that it would be perfectly proper for people to use, such as pyrethroids, organophosphates or carbamates, because the potential is that they would be even more damaging to the pollinator population. That concern does not mean that we should not take action against neonicotinoids if the evidence is clear that they are causing problems in field conditions, but it was not unreasonable to say that the paucity of field-trial evidence was astonishing.

I do not have portfolio responsibility for this matter, but when I looked at it with a view sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North was saying, I was amazed at how little evidence there was in field conditions, which I think exposes a failure of the scientific world to address the problem. I hope that we can play our part in persuading others across the European Union to take a more rational view of where we concentrate our research so that we get the evidence we need, and that is what we are trying to do. Although our assessment is that the risk to the bee population from neonicotinoids, as currently used, is low, we may be wrong and evidence may come forward from trials that shows otherwise. If such evidence is there, we shall, of course, accept it, but we need more complete evidence than we currently have.

The European Commission has committed itself to a review of evidence by 2015, which we want to be founded firmly on a strengthened scientific evidence base. We will play our part in that and are currently talking about the design of field trials that might be in place during the moratorium period, so that we can gather evidence, not just on the honey bee, but on other bee species as well. The FERA research was on the bumblebee rather than the honey bee. It is important that we understand how other species are affected.

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I take a great deal of pleasure in knowing how much my hon. Friend knows about the subject and how sincerely he takes it to heart, but does he understand that some of my constituents see the careful words he has just spoken as indicating that the Government are ducking and weaving? May I ask him, in the nicest possible way, whether the Government will be in a position to take a decision when the further research is done or whether they will want still more research to be that little bit more certain?

[Mr Heath]

Let me be very clear—I am not the world’s greatest scientist, although I have a scientific degree—that we cannot have scientific certainty; we can have only a balance of probabilities based on evidence. We think that the evidential basis for the decision is weak because we do not have evidence from field trials. If the evidence suggests that laboratory results are replicated in field conditions, we will want to take a decision, because we want to protect our pollinator populations. That is important.

I have very little time left because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North needs to respond to the debate. She asked three questions, including one on the precautionary principle. I hope I have explained our approach on that. She asked about the research and the difference between laboratory and field studies, and about the EU directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, which I believe the Government will implement in full. More work needs to be done on pesticides across the board. It is a misrepresentation to say that the wicked seed companies are pulling the wool over the eyes of the rest of the world. We need transparency of evidence so we know exactly what is happening during the regulatory process and beyond. We are speaking to those companies to ensure that they provide the greatest possible transparency.

The hon. Lady asked what changed between the abstention and the decision to vote no. The answer is that we pressed and pressed again on the need to commission the evidence that we believe would have given a sound basis for the decision, but we did not secure agreement. That is why we are in the position we are in.

The Government are determined to do everything we can to protect our bees and pollinators. They are essential not only to our economy, but to our environment and our ecology. We will take all necessary steps to do so.

Badger Cull

David Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[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—

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It is about vaccines.

[Mary Creagh]

I know it is about vaccines, but it is extraordinary that it does not mention the Government’s main control strategy.

I want to return to the badger numbers. Last year, the farm industry estimated that there were 1,800 badgers in west Gloucestershire and 2,700 in west Somerset. The Government’s figures then rose: they estimated that there were between 3,000 and 4,000 badgers in west Gloucestershire and between 3,000 and 5,000 in west Somerset, and that is why the culls stopped.

This year we have a different set of figures: it is estimated that there are between 2,500 and 4,000 badgers in west Gloucestershire and roughly between 2,000 and 3,000 in west Somerset. If we are dealing with ranges of figures, that causes a problem. We are licensing people to kill 70% of the badgers, but if the numbers are at the lower end of the range, the licensed marksmen could kill 100% of the badger population and still not meet their licensing criteria. That is a really difficult position to put farmers in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I understand the human issues very well, but the farming community is divided on this matter. I have received a letter from cattle farmers in Gloucestershire who say that they are

“opposed to the badger cull”.

[Mr Heath]

That one.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know whether there is just one. I am assuming that there are more than one.

The farmers have given me permission to read out the letter. It states that the consultation by DEFRA’s Animal Health and Welfare Board and

“the published reports from these events show no consensus for a badger cull. They also show that farmers are concerned about the indiscriminate shooting of large numbers of badgers”.

There is also a letter from the British Veterinary Association in The Independent today that criticises the support for the cull. I think that it is fair to say that the veterinary community is also divided on the issue. That is problematic, because it is never good to have a policy that divides the country so bitterly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

This has been an extremely useful debate, not least because it has, I hope, reminded people that we are dealing with a disease with devastating consequences not just for animals, including cattle, and for wildlife, but for families and businesses across the country, and a disease that has an enormous impact on rural areas. All Government Members mentioned that and, creditably, some Opposition Members did, too, including the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), as well as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who had clearly gone to the trouble of speaking to farmers in her constituency. I applaud that.

It is clear to me that we need a proper, comprehensive strategy to deal with this disease. If there is one marked contrast in the debate, it is that between the Opposition’s motion, which simply says no to one part of the strategy, and the Government’s amendment, which sets out a proper view of how we should be dealing with the problem.

Let me deal with some of the misconceptions and disinformation that sometimes make their way into such debates. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), whom I cannot see in his place, talked about the “genocide” of badgers in an intervention, and I think the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) talked about “extermination”. Let us be absolutely clear that we are not talking about exterminating badgers. We are not talking about leaving this country without one of its iconic species across most of the countryside. In fact, in large parts of the countryside badgers and cattle are healthy; not a single thing will happen to badgers in those areas. We are talking about targeting areas where the badger has endemic disease and where we need to deal with it. It is right and proper that we should do so.

It has been suggested that other countries have managed to deal with TB effectively without dealing with the wildlife reservoir of infection. That is simply not true. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very clearly provided those countries that have dealt with TB effectively and it is impossible to suggest a single country in which TB has been dealt with where there is a wildlife reservoir that has not been dealt with.

Let me scotch the myth about the research on vaccination, because several Members said that we had cut such research. It is simply not true. Let me give the figures. From 1994 to 2010, £43 million was spent on such research, or approximately £2.7 million a year. From 2010 to 2014, £15.5 million has been spent, or £3.8 million a year. That does not include the £1 million we have already spent on preparation for the field trials of the vaccine in this country for the purposes of the European Union and the many millions of pounds that would be spent on conducting those trials.

Then we have the nonsense about the Government cancelling six of the vaccination trials. Let me be clear that they were not vaccination trials but trials to see whether we could train lay people to vaccinate animals. We do not need six experiments to see whether it is possible to train a lay person to vaccinate animals; we need one successful trial of that technique. We need to engage with those people who want to use vaccination across the country, to see where we can deploy it properly. That is where we have put resource. That is why I have been talking to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) about the proposals he has in Penwith. That is why we have worked with conservation groups in Gloucestershire and elsewhere—because we believe that vaccination is part of the answer, part of the comprehensive strategy, and we want to ensure that we use it effectively.

But there is one significant problem with using vaccine, which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report clearly lays out. At the moment we do not have a viable, injectable vaccine that is cost-effective and sensible to use. We do not have an oral vaccine; we hope that we will in the near future, so we are directing research into that area, because that would make a big difference. The one problem that cannot be avoided is that a vaccine cannot cure a sick animal. A sick animal continues to excrete, continues to spread infection; so it is necessary to remove the centre of infection from the population and then protect the rest with badger vaccine. I hope that we shall be able to do so.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned the trials in Wales with great approbation. I hope that those work, but they are an experiment. We talk about non- evidence-based work. She mentioned Dr Christianne Glossop, the chief vet in Wales. What did she say? She said:

“We don’t know whether vaccination will provide us with the appropriate way of dealing with the wildlife element of infection.”

She continued:

“There is no trial data to show that vaccinating badgers will make a difference on cattle herd breakdowns”.

I really hope it works; I would love it to work, but I cannot say that I know it will work because nobody knows that.

The hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said that we do not know the badger numbers so the whole basis of the cull is nonsense. Let me be clear about the methodology. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Wakefield would look at the methodology before coming to the House to speak on the issue. We have the DNA hair test; that is a constant feedback loop on the proportion of the badger population in an area that is being caught by the cull. We will know definitively what proportion we are dealing with and we can make adjustments accordingly. So there is not the slightest question of all badgers in the area being killed, or of taking out far too few to be effective.

On humaneness, the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) made the point far better than I could that the organisations that were arguing for shooting as the most humane method of disposal are now saying it is the least humane; they cannot have it both ways. Humaneness will be looked at as part of the trials. Independent observers will be watching and reporting back. The point of the trials is to check on humaneness, effectiveness and safety.

We are told that scientists have reached no consensus. That is not true either. On the science there is consensus. We had a very valuable meeting at the Royal Society recently, where there was clear scientific consensus on the validity of the evidence. But there is no consensus on the political conclusions drawn from that evidence. Scientists are entitled to have a political view, but they are not entitled to mistake that for evidence; that is my simple contention.

We are told that the costs will be prohibitive because, the Opposition believe, people will behave illegally in those areas and will have to be policed. The same could be said about anything, but I can tell the House that there are people shooting safely every night of the week across rural Britain, and large amounts of policing with extra costs are not required. The only reason for extra policing costs will be if there are people who are determined to break the law and put themselves and others in danger.

Like the hon. Members for Scunthorpe and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), I hope that we can reach consensus on a comprehensive strategy, but no country has ever successfully borne down on TB without doing something about the reservoir of infection in the wildlife population. I believe that what we are proposing will achieve healthy cattle and healthy badgers. Our objective is clear: to remove this devastating disease from this country. We want to get back to having official TB-free status for this country. That will be good for farmers, good for wildlife and good for the taxpayers of this country, and I believe that the policy should commend itself to the House.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.