Marine Conservation Zones

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate. I should immediately apologise for the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who cannot be here this afternoon. In some recompense for his absence, I make it immediately plain to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that the Minister has offered to come and meet him, and to talk to his constituents to understand the factors in his constituency better. I hope that that goes some way towards entering into the necessary dialogue. Whether I am at liberty to extend that invitation on the Minister’s behalf to Suffolk Coastal as well, I am not sure, but knowing my hon. Friend, I am sure that he would have no problem entering discussions with the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

Perhaps it will be sensible if I outline the purpose of marine conservation zones, as we see it. The UK has a large marine area, which is rich in marine life and natural resource. Our seas are not just places of important biological diversity; they provide us with a variety of goods and services that are important for our social, economic and environmental well-being.

The Government are committed—in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders)—to contributing to the development of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. However, we have been clear that we want successful, well-managed sites, created in the right places in the right way, and not only lines on maps. We have to get this right so that our seas are sustainable, productive and healthy, and to ensure that the right balance is struck between conservation and important industries.

MCZs are a new form of marine protected area provided for under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The new MCZs are part of a wider agenda for protecting the important habitats and species in our seas. They will complement other marine protected areas —special protection areas, special areas of conservation, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites—to contribute to a coherent network in our seas. About 24% of English inshore waters, out to 12 nautical miles, and more than 8% of the UK sea area are already established as marine protected areas to protect important habitats and species. In the UK, there are already 107 special areas of conservation, 107 special protection areas for birds with marine components, and 377 coastal SSSIs.

That is the overall framework in which we are working. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe is concerned, quite properly, on behalf of his constituents, about the balance that we must strike in his area between the interests of his constituents and their economic future, and the need for effective ecological support. I understand that. I am also well aware of the concerns that are being expressed in relation to the proposed site at Hythe bay and the “recover” conservation objective. An official from my Department attended a local meeting during the consultation to hear those concerns. Officials are currently reviewing the responses to the consultation, including considering evidence provided, and we will respond to the consultation in the summer.

Let me go back to the overall picture. The four regional stakeholder projects did some very good work to provide an initial list of proposals. We do not think it appropriate to designate all 127 site recommendations straight away, because of weaknesses in the evidence base for many of the sites noted by the DEFRA-appointed science advisory panel in its review of the recommendations. However, we have since committed additional resources to plugging those gaps and, in the consultation, we proposed pressing ahead with the first 31 sites that we considered suitable for designation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will announce the timetable for future designations of MCZs later this year.

We are aware of the concerns that some people have raised about evidence standards. Adequate evidence is vital. Without it, it is impossible to define the management measures necessary and take effective conservation action. We want to see that happen quickly after designation. There will be no prospect of securing agreement from other member states to regulate the activities of their fishermen where this is required in waters beyond our 6-mile limits. We would also lack a proper justification for the regulatory burden placed on business or the enforcement and monitoring costs that fall on the taxpayer. That is why the evidence is essential.

The impact assessment that accompanied the consultation gave an indication of the costs and benefits of possible management measures for all the sites and provided a good indication of what might be expected. The management measures noted in the impact assessment were provided for illustrative purposes and to allow for the calculation of a range of potential cost implications for each site. Consultees were invited to comment on those in responding to the consultation and provide additional information to facilitate a better understanding of the possible implications of site designation and to help to refine associated costs. Management measures were not being consulted on at that stage. When an MCZ is designated, that does not automatically mean that economic or recreational activities on that site will be restricted. Restrictions on an activity will depend on the sensitivity of the species and habitats for which a site is designated to the activities taking place in that area and on the conservation objectives for those features.

[Andrew George]

I know that my hon. Friend cannot make up policy on the hoof in the absence of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but the Act says that the Government are required to consult on the designation, although it does not say that the Government or the MMO is required to consult on the management plan. Would the Minister be prepared to say that he will ensure that the Department makes sure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to be consulted on the management plan as it applies within the new MCZs?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would not make up policy on the hoof even if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was here, because that is not the way we do things in our Department. That said, the actual management measures will be drawn up separately and put in place by the relevant public authorities after designation and will be open for consultation, as appropriate, before they are implemented. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) that that is exactly what will happen.

This is particularly relevant to the point raised by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe, where there is a dispute about the evidence. I accept that the evidence at the moment is generic across the Hythe bay area. That is why we need more information about what is happening. Within the site, a rich sea pen and burrowing megafauna community is present in the soft sediment, which is presumed to be continuous across Hythe bay, based on data from sample points taken annually over a 10-year period. That is why the site is considered overall to be a biodiversity hot spot within the balanced seas area, but we need more information on exactly what is happening within that site.

[Damian Collins]

On that point, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong to change the designation of the area unless there was very clear scientific evidence as to why that change needed to be made?

[Mr Heath]

The precautionary principle suggests that we should do the reverse—that we should up the level of designation until such time as we can be confident that we will not be damaging the very ecological factors that give rise to the designation in the process—so that is the approach that we take, but it is sensitive to the information that we receive from the hon. Gentleman’s local fishermen, among others, who will have a deep interest in and knowledge of the seas with which they are familiar. We need to look at that, along with all the scientific evidence, and then make a subsequent assessment of how to manage the site. That will be based, as I said, on the real factors. What is there? What is its value? What would be the potential damage from unregulated activity on that site? That would apply to any site.

The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal was a little dismissive of ballast thrown overboard being a valuable habitat. I have to tell her that it can be an extremely valuable habitat if it is colonised by the right species and has therefore formed an ecosystem that is worthy of preservation. The derivation of the rocky material on the sea bed is not the issue. The issue is what is then growing on that material and how it relates to the surrounding environment.

I am not prejudging the hon. Lady’s case. I know nothing about the sites off Suffolk Coastal and I have not been briefed, because I was not aware that she was coming this afternoon, but I promise her that the same considerations will apply to her site as will apply to that of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe in ensuring that we have the right information on which to base a reasoned argument. That really is the answer, and I am sure that it is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say when he goes to Hythe to discuss these issues. Let us look at the evidence, see what the appropriate designation is and work with those who have a specific interest in those waters—of course that includes the fishing community—to arrive at something that will work for everyone concerned. There is a very heavy responsibility on Government to get this right.

I have no responsibility directly for fishing and maritime policy at the moment, but I was involved at the very start of this process, back in the 1980s, when I was arguing on behalf of the World Wide Fund for Nature for conservation of our seas. At that time it was not even being thought of, but we are now at a highly developed stage in the process, where we have something that is realistic and holistic around our island nation, and it is really important that we get it right.

To recap, the public consultation was launched on 13 December 2012 and closed on 31 March 2013. It gave stakeholders the opportunity to comment and provide more evidence on the proposed sites before final decisions are made. DEFRA received more than 40,000 responses to the public consultation. The evidence received from the public consultation, along with other evidence collected since the statutory nature conservation bodies submitted their advice in July 2012, is being evaluated and will be taken into consideration before Ministers make their final decisions on which sites to designate in the first tranche.

The Government remain committed to the development, as I said, of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. Now that the public consultation has closed, we aim to publish our response in the summer before making final decisions on which sites to designate in the first tranche this year. These zones are not the sum of our ambition: we expect to be taking forward more sites in the next phase. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury will announce the timetable for future designations of MCZs later this year.

The area of Hythe is a vital one. We want to get this right. I can assure the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that we will make strenuous efforts to listen to what his constituents have to say and to the views of others with specialist knowledge in this area, and I hope that we will reach the right decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.

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

Good morning, Mr Speaker.

The Government are introducing a range of measures to tackle irresponsible dog ownership, including: extending the criminal offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control to all places, including inside the dog owner’s home; requiring all dogs to be microchipped from April 2016; and powers to enable local authorities and the police to respond to incidences of antisocial behaviour that involves a dog before the situation becomes dangerous.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the Minister for that answer. In my constituency, Medway council has been running a local community initiative offering free microchipping and advice on looking after dogs. What are the Government doing to encourage such community initiatives that help to foster responsible dog ownership?

[Mr Heath]

That is exactly what we want to see happening, and I applaud my hon. Friend’s local council for promoting responsible dog ownership. We provided £50,000 of funding to three welfare charities to carry out community engagement programmes in targeted hot spot areas with known problems of antisocial behaviour with dogs. Final reports are being received and we intend to publish the results for further dissemination of best practice. Educating the public on how to look after their dogs properly is absolutely essential to tackling irresponsible dog ownership.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the cost of microchipping to the consumer? What discussions has he had with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a UK-wide approach?

[Mr Heath]

I am not quite sure who the consumer is in this instance. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman means the dog owner. Most of the microchipping will be done by charities and will be free to owners. A number of charities are happy to work with us on that, so I do not think that we are talking about prohibitive cost. We are working with the devolved Administrations so that, as far as possible, we have consistency across national boundaries.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

One of the charities the Minister has been working with is Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which is focusing particularly on encouraging more responsible attitudes in younger people. May I commend to the Minister the video “Bully Breed”, which it launched in Parliament recently and which could be a good educational tool for schools and youth groups?

[Mr Heath]

Indeed. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home does a lot of very good work to promote responsible dog ownership, not least because it sees the consequences when things go wrong, and I certainly commend its work. I hope we will be able to make people appreciate that, whether through ignorance, neglect or malice, it is simply unacceptable to have a dog that is a danger to other people under any circumstances.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

While we welcome compulsory microchipping and the extension to include private property in pursuing prosecutions of irresponsible dog owners, why did the Government not also include dog control notices as part of the measures, something that the Dogs Trust has been calling for and which would go a long way to helping to solve this problem?

[Mr Heath]

Of course, the Home Office is introducing the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which will deal with precisely this problem. I cannot see the obsession with the label that is placed on those orders—it is the outcome that matters. What matters is the fact that flexible tools will be available to the police and others to deal with this nuisance in the way the hon. Gentleman wants. The measures will be in the Bill, and he will have the opportunity shortly to discuss whether they go far enough and whether there are any opportunities for improvement.

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

2. What progress he has made on opening up new markets to British producers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

3. If he will consider banning live animal exports from British ports; and if he will make a statement.

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

Banning the export of live animals would be illegal and undermine the principle of the free movement of goods enshrined in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My constituents are concerned about live animal exports: they think them bad for animal welfare and the local economy. Will the Minister confirm that no amendment could be made to any of the harbours or ports Acts that would be effective in tackling this cruel and unwanted trade?

[Mr Heath]

The key piece of legislation here is the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, which would be a singularly inappropriate vehicle for any such ban, because its aim is to ensure that ports are available to all without discrimination. Even were one to set that aside, however, no such ban would be legal under the free trade rules that this country is not only a signatory to, but the architect of.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Minister envisage that in any renegotiation of the terms of the UK’s membership of the EU, the capacity to change the law in this regard would be one of the things agreed?

[Mr Heath]

We should not confuse animal welfare issues, on which we will continue to push for changes, and the free movement of goods and services, on which this country has a clear position. We are in favour of the free movement of goods and services, and we are unlikely to argue for significant changes to that basic principle.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to support the glasshouse industry; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to safeguard the future of forests and woodland.

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

We have set out our commitment to protecting, improving and expanding England’s forestry assets. This includes establishing a new body to run the public forest estate, maintaining a core of forestry expertise in government and supporting the forestry sector to improve its economic performance. We are also giving greater priority to plant health and we look forward to receiving the final report of the tree health and plant biosecurity taskforce later this month.

[Gavin Williamson]

The Forestry Commission owns a considerable amount of land in and around my constituency, including on Cannock Chase and Highgate common. What action are the Government taking, along with the Forestry Commission, to work more closely with voluntary organisations such as the Staffordshire wildlife trust to improve not only access, but the wildlife management of these important local beauty spots?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman has absolutely hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what we set out in the forestry and woodlands policy statement. We made it clear that we want the new public forest estate management organisation to work closely with local communities to improve the delivery of public benefits such as access, recreation and biodiversity. The Forestry Commission is already taking that commitment forward by developing a new package of community engagement measures.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Forestry Commission’s strategy stated clearly that recent outbreaks of tree health problems, such as oak processionary moth, underline the need to maintain an experienced team of pathologists and entomologists capable of carrying out both strategic research and “fire brigade” investigations of new problems. Will the Minister therefore rule out any new cuts to DEFRA and its agencies in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, particularly as that would endanger the future survival of our country’s trees and forests?

[Mr Heath]

It is desperately important that we not only keep together the cadre of experts we have, but expand it. There is a need to recruit new expert entomologists, for instance. The hon. Lady mentions oak processionary moth, which is a significant problem, but there are many other potential diseases and pests that we need to be aware of. I am absolutely clear that we need to retain that centre of expertise in the Department. That is exactly what the tree health and plant biosecurity taskforce is looking at. It is not for me to pre-empt what the spending review might say, but it is certainly our intent to ensure that we protect essential services to protect tree health.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport and farmers on mitigating the effects of High Speed 2 on farms affected by the proposed route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the forthcoming legislation on dangerous dogs.

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

May I congratulate the hon. Lady again on both the tenor and content of her Adjournment debate speech on this subject last night? As she will know, there have been several discussions between DEFRA and Home Office Ministers on how the new measures contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will apply to low-level incidents involving dogs.

[Julie Hilling]

My constituent, 14-year-old Jade Lomas Anderson, was the most recent person to be killed by dangerous dogs. Despite the Minister’s assurances, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, all the animal welfare charities, the British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union still believe we need dog control notices to prevent dog attacks and do not believe that the current proposals will do enough to prevent injuries to people and other animals by aggressive dogs. Will the Minister please reconsider his position so that we can do more to prevent tragedies such as the one that befell Jade and her family from occurring in the future?

[Mr Heath]

We certainly need to do everything we can to avoid that sort of tragedy. The fact is that nine children and six adults have been killed in dog attacks since 2005 and 12 of those took place on private property. On the question of what species of injunction we use to prevent irresponsible dog ownership, I believe, as does the Home Office, that its proposals provide the flexibility we need. I do not think that having a proliferation of different measures with different labels, which I am afraid was a characteristic of the previous Government’s approach, is necessarily the right way forward. We will be able to discuss this, however, in the context of the Bill, and I hope we will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I believe that assistance dogs are wonderful selfless animals as well providing an invaluable resource for individuals with an impairment. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of this Government’s proposals, future attacks on assistance dogs will be considered to be an aggravated offence?

[Mr Heath]

That is absolutely right. It is contained within the Home Office proposals and the Home Office Bill, and I think it will largely be welcomed across the House.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking on flood insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to promote community orchards.

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

Community orchards provide a place for local people to reconnect with nature, and they encourage biodiversity. That is why we have worked across government and with the European Union to make it easier for local people to establish community orchards.

[Jesse Norman]

In Herefordshire, the Bulmer Foundation does outstanding work in opening up community orchards for disadvantaged people of all backgrounds, and only last week Orchard Art was celebrated at a special service in Hereford cathedral. Does the Minister of State share my view that community orchards can have enormous social as well as environmental value, and will he join me in congratulating the Bulmer Foundation on its Orchard Art initiative?

[Mr Heath]

Herefordshire has the distinction of being the second best county in the country for production of orchards. In 2012, research commissioned by Natural England found that community orchards produced a range of valuable benefits over and above the fruit they supply. They provide a haven for wildlife, lock up carbon and enhance the quality of life of the people living around them. I do indeed congratulate the Bulmer Foundation on the work it is doing and the difference it is making for local communities.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

T3. A draft Bill on banning wild animals in circuses was published by DEFRA in April but did not feature in the Queen’s Speech. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that Bill will be introduced in this House in this Session or not?

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

The Bill has been introduced to the House for pre-legislative scrutiny. It is in the hands of the Select Committee at the moment, and I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of the Select Committee’s considerations.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

T2. May I return the Government to the issue of antisocial behaviour caused when a large number of dogs are packed into a small garden, which not only causes a nuisance to neighbours, but is not good for the dogs themselves? I have written to the Home Office about this, the letter has been transferred to DEFRA, and I have not yet had a response. May I please have a meeting with the relevant Minister?

[Mr Heath]

I am sure that that will be possible. The relevant Minister is Lord de Mauley, to whom I will communicate my hon. Friend’s request. I hope it will be acceded to.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Almost a year ago, the then Secretary of State told me that a deal on flood insurance was imminent. Is not the real villain of the piece here the Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has blocked a deal being reached? Is this not another example of a shambolic Government, who have had three years to sort this matter out and now have to get a further month’s extension, with there still being no guarantee that a deal will be in place after that extra month?

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T4. What is my right hon. Friend doing to make sure that the new single farm payment forms are as short as possible?

[Mr Heath]

That is a very interesting point, because one of the main principles underlying our negotiation for common agricultural policy reform has been that whatever comes out has to be simple and deliverable. One of the mistakes made back in 2005 was that we had an over-complicated system and a lack of resource to deliver it, and as a result we had a shambles in the Rural Payments Agency.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In answer to previous questions from me about how we can protect people from the adverse effects of low-energy lighting, Ministers indicated that they would need to get support from other European partners. What steps have they been taking in the past six months to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

What is the Government’s estimate of the costs of policing the badger cull, and who will pay for it?

[Mr Heath]

We have made it very clear that this Department will cover the marginal costs to the police forces involved of policing the cull, when it takes place. Obviously, the level of costs will be entirely dependent on the level of illegal activity in the areas in which the cull is taking place.

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

T6. The Secretary of State often makes reference to the common agricultural policy delivering public goods for public money. Does he agree that the delivery of increased amounts of safe, high-quality, affordable food from this country’s farms is one such public good?

[Mr Heath]

I certainly do agree. The clear intention of CAP money is to support those areas where the market does not provide, as I know my hon. Friend would agree. But we need a thriving agricultural industry in this country, and that means that we ensure that for the future we have the food security that this country desperately needs.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Calcium, iron and other nutrients have been added to white flour in this country for over 65 years, and it is very worrying to hear that the Government are considering possibly scrapping that. Does the Secretary of State see that as an important addition to nutrition for families, particularly in hard-pressed times, or simply a regulatory burden that he wants to get rid of?

[Mr Heath]

We are considering a review of the national rules relating to bread and flour as they apply to England. We held a public consultation seeking views on possible deregulatory options, which closed on 13 March 2013. We are analysing the 47 responses that we received, in conjunction with the Department of Health. We are committed to ensuring that any policy decision on the removal of mandatory fortification will take into account an assessment of the health impacts, the impact on industry and the implications for other parts of the United Kingdom and the interests of consumers. We intend to announce our decision before the summer recess.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

T7. Is the Minister aware of any international examples of disease control that could be applicable in the bid to control bovine TB in the UK?

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

In recent days, it has emerged that burgers served in Leicester schools that were classified as halal contained pork. There have been similar examples elsewhere in the country. Will the Secretary of State undertake to have urgent discussions with the Food Standards Agency to ensure that halal food is indeed halal food?

[Mr Heath]

This is a matter of great concern to consumers; I perfectly understand that. That is one reason why we have had meetings with the religious authorities, and of course with the Food Standards Agency. It is the responsibility of manufacturers, processors and retailers to ensure that what they provide is what they say they are providing. Certification is a matter for the religious authorities; that is not a Government issue, but we will work closely with them to ensure that what people eat is what it says on the label.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T8. Hill farmers across Britain were badly affected by the severe weather at the end of March and in early April. Some of the worst hit were in Macclesfield. Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that the payment process will be clearly communicated, and that the very welcome funds will be available at the earliest opportunity?

[Mr Heath]

I certainly will. All the key information was announced yesterday; the hon. Gentleman may be aware of that. The National Fallen Stock Company will administer the scheme both for farmers who are members of the company and those who are not. Farmers should visit the National Fallen Stock Company website or call its telephone helpline to get the details and check whether they are eligible. Applications must be received by 30 June and payments are expected to be made by the end of July.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Government said that the pilot badger culls are being carried out to test whether badgers can be killed humanely. They still have not released the criteria by which the cull will be assessed to ascertain whether it is humane. When will those criteria be published—or is the Minister holding them back because he knows perfectly well that they will demonstrate that it is not possible to kill them in a humane way?

[Mr Heath]

It is always interesting when people know the results of a trial before it is carried out. These trials will indicate whether it is possible to effect this cull in a humane, a safe and an effective way. That will be reviewed by an independent panel, quite independent of the Department and those taking part in the cull, and we will then assess that and report to the House in due course.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

T9. Pillar two funding of the post-2014 CAP arrangements is vital to continue the rural development in the Vale of Glamorgan. Local decision making and administration has been key to that success in the past. This is at risk. Will the Secretary of State do everything possible to ensure that it is maintained?

[Mr Heath]

The Welsh Assembly Government are developing the next rural development programme for Wales. We are in a difficult positions in that we have not quite reached the conclusion of the negotiations. When the European Commission confirms the UK allocation of pillar two funding, we will be in a better position to assess the funding available for each of the UK’s Administrations.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that the fortification of bread and flour with nutrients is a burden on business or an important way of ensuring that hard-pressed families facing the cost of living crisis get the nutrition that they need?

[Mr Heath]

I think we should hold a consultation, listen to the results and then reach a decision. That is what we are doing.

[Mr Speaker]

Very briefly, I call Mr Andrew Stephenson.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T10. I recently met my National Farmers Union branch on a farm in Barrowford to discuss the challenges that many are facing, with many leaving the industry. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage new entrants to the industry?

[Mr Heath]

That is absolutely crucial. We need to attract the best and the brightest into farming, the other land-based industries and the food industry. It is the biggest manufacturing industry in this country. That is why a short time ago I launched a future for farming review, which is under way. I hope that it will provide us with a clear picture of where the barriers are and where the opportunities are for attracting people into these industries.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the ministerial team and to colleagues.

Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas Anderson

David Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on securing the debate and on speaking with genuine eloquence and passion on behalf of her constituents. I salute her for doing so. Nothing I can say or do will fill the void in the lives of the family and friends of Jade Lomas Anderson, but I do want to send my condolences to them. The tragic circumstances of her death will, I hope, not be repeated, but they ought to make every Member mindful of whether we have the right legislation in place and what we can do. Such tragic incidents serve to remind us of the importance of responsible dog ownership and the far-reaching consequences of irresponsible dog ownership, which can affect all of us, regardless of whether we own a dog. I hope that that message will strike home.

The Government continue to take the matter of dangerous dogs extremely seriously, and the hon. Lady kindly set out some of the measures we have put in place. The previous legislation was passed in haste and was inadequate in many ways. It has been seen not to be fit for purpose and we must close some of the loopholes and gaps.

On 9 May, provisions amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 were introduced into the House with the First Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. That follows the announcement on 6 February of the intention to amend the 1991 Act. Our legislating in this directed way, having taken the advice of many people, makes it clear that the Government are serious about tackling the issue of dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership.

The key element of the amendments addresses the issue of dog attacks on people. Sadly, such incidents are on the rise, and 15 people have died in this country as a result of dog attacks since 2005. That is totally unacceptable. To address that, and to toughen the laws in this area, we are giving the police more powers to deal with attacks that happen on private property—a specific lacuna in the law—in order to protect the thousands of children, postal workers, health visitors, social care workers and others who are attacked each year. That has been widely welcomed by key bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Royal Mail, which recognise the danger to their employees. The message from the Government is clear: owners must be responsible for their dog at all times and in all places.

This Government recognise that there are many responsible dog owners, and we support them. It is for that reason that the clauses amending the 1991 Act contain an explicit exemption from prosecution for householders whose dog attacks a trespasser who is in, or is entering, a home, whether or not the householder is present. That reinforces the Government’s position that it is right that householders should not be at risk of prosecution for reasonable actions taken in self-defence or in defence of property.

We have also made sure that irresponsible owners have to face up to the consequences of their actions. Last year, the Sentencing Council published new guidelines for judges and magistrates on sentencing for dangerous dog offences, including increasing the recommended sentencing range for an offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control and injuring someone from six to 18 months’ imprisonment. According to the Sentencing Council:

“The new guideline will mean more offenders will face jail sentences, more will get community orders and fewer will receive discharges.”

Those new guidelines came into effect in August 2012.

The change is too late for the hon. Lady’s constituents—I recognise that—but it will ensure that any future cases are treated as a criminal matter. In addition, there are existing powers available to deal with any dog that is dangerously out of control or being used to intimidate people. Those powers have been and are being used, but it is right to extend the protection to people in all places, including their homes, so that owners know they will be held accountable for the behaviour of their dogs, wherever those dogs may be. We therefore look forward to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill moving through the House and being properly debated before it receives Royal Assent.

The Government consider that owning a dog is a serious undertaking and should not be done lightly. We are working closely with the animal welfare charities to encourage people to take more responsibility for their own actions and their pets. The hon. Lady made some very sensible points about education, because a lot of dog owners simply do not recognise what they should be doing. Whether through ignorance, neglect or malice, it is simply unacceptable for dogs to be kept in circumstances in which they remain a danger to other people. That is what we need to address.

Early intervention is vital in preventing poorly trained or poorly socialised dogs escalating to serious and ultimately dangerous attacks. As well as amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Bill introduces six flexible tools designed to be used by local enforcement agencies, including the police and local authorities, to respond effectively to individual and local situations that may or may not involve dogs.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister his assurances, particularly on increased police powers. One of the challenges I discovered when I engaged with the police over the incident I mentioned was that the police said that even if they had they been able to go on to private property to remove the dog, they had no facility in which to house the dog afterwards. The incident happened over an Easter weekend and no pounds were available—there was no place to take the dog. What assurances can he give about the facilities available to house dogs that are causing such distress?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is something we have been discussing with ACPO, because it is essential that if we give powers to the police, they can exercise them properly. A range of sanctions will be available to the police to deal with dogs. Some dogs, I am afraid, will have to be destroyed straight away—that is the reality—and others will be impounded, so it is important that there are facilities available to keep those dogs safely until they can be assessed or retrieved, as appropriate.

Returning to the proposals to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act, we hope that they will provide a set of flexible and effective tools and powers to enable the police and local authorities to tackle a wide range of antisocial behaviour, including dog-related incidents. The amendments to the Act, bolstered by the new antisocial behaviour measures, will provide the framework for tackling irresponsible dog ownership, from low-level incidents to more serious dog attacks. That will help to encourage a more responsible approach. The focus should also be on ensuring proper enforcement, which can only be helped by engaging local communities, who understand local problems and can report them, combined with educating owners on responsible behaviour, as the hon. Lady said.

[Julie Hilling]

If the Bill really does as the Minister says and offers that holistic approach that could be summed up with dog control notices, why are all experts in the field saying that the Bill does not go far enough? There is still real concern about not having the ability to intervene early and the particular things that we can instruct the owner to do, including having training for both the dog and the owner. Without those, it is hard to see how this will be a holistic, preventive measure, because it is not enough. I appreciate that there will be actions to take after the event, but we have to do things to stop the problems in the first place.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady is right. It is not good enough to deal with problems after the event. We need a preventive measure—an injunctive measure, which will be provided by the antisocial behaviour provisions that I am describing. She raises an important point, which I hope my colleagues in the Home Office will have the opportunity to discuss during the Bill’s passage through the House. They are confident that the measures they are introducing will have the desired effect. Obviously, the hon. Lady is not quite persuaded of that view yet. I hope we will have that debate and get the right solution.

It is unnecessary to devise new labels and new measures that replicate the existing ones, so I hope the hon. Lady she will approach the measures with an open mind and listen to what my colleagues in the Home Office have to say. If she is not persuaded, she will no doubt argue for strengthening the Bill when it comes to the House, but I hope she will be persuaded, as we believe that the flexible approach adopted in the Bill provides a suite of measures which can be used not just for dogs but for other antisocial behaviour practices which need to be addressed. That is not a subject for this debate but I refer, for instance, to the flag racing of horses, which I am very concerned about. I would like to see antisocial behaviour measures which deal effectively with that.

Let us have that discussion in the context of the Bill. I certainly hear the hon. Lady’s concerns; it would be foolish not to, and I will take them back to colleagues. Nevertheless, let us have the debate when we get to the appropriate stage of the Bill.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. To me, the crucial question is where intervention can start. Many of these cases would never have reached anything like antisocial behaviour. If we look at the deaths and terrible injuries that have occurred, we find that many of them would never have passed any threshold other than someone saying, “I’m a bit worried about those dogs.” That stage is crucial.

There are other issues, such as the breeding of animals and their welfare. There has long been a need for all those aspects to be wrapped up in one Bill, but it feels as though we are just dealing with little bits and we will still have to come back and do more.

[Mr Heath]

I do not entirely agree that it is necessary to have consolidated legislation in order to effect the suite of measures that the hon. Lady is looking for. There are many cases in criminal law where various provisions dealing with similar issues are contained in different legislation. Sometimes that has benefits. I agree that it makes it slightly more difficult for the lawyer or the police officer to find the necessary measure, but provided they know that there is a measure on the statute book, they can use it. This is fairly common in criminal law. There has been a great profusion of criminal justice legislation over the years, much of which deals with overlapping issues.

I do not entirely accept the hon. Lady’s criticism. In a perfect world we would have neat self-contained Bills on every subject, dealing with the entire statutory background to it. In reality, the House does not work like that. Also, there are provisions with respect to dogs and antisocial behaviour in common law as well as statute law, so even if we had a single statute, it would still not cover all the law that pertains. Nevertheless, I hear what the hon. Lady says.

To continue what I was saying, it is very important that we now work with practitioners, local authorities and animal welfare charities to produce guidance that clearly demonstrates how the new tools can be used to cover all that dog control notices do and more, and to take account of the needs of communities as well as dog welfare. One of the measures echoes the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Local authorities will be required to provide 24-hour accommodation, but the police should also have such a facility if they are doing their job properly. We need to talk to them about that.

A number of commentators have asked who will enforce the controls on dogs. The Government understand the pressure on both the police and local authorities at this time. The split that we see is that the police will concentrate their time on more serious criminal matters, which will involve investigating dog attacks under the Dangerous Dogs Act, and not spend time dealing with stray dogs. That makes sense. Local authorities should be taking decisions on local priorities for action and allocate their resources accordingly. Some local authorities have been very proactive and imaginative in providing local solutions and approaches to dealing with dogs. For example, it is a requirement of Wandsworth’s housing tenancy agreements that any dogs on its properties are microchipped. That means that there is a direct link between the dog and its owner, which encourages more responsible behaviour and reduces dog-related incidents.

The Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits four specific types of fighting dog, and the hon. Lady mentioned the issues relating to bull terriers—the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro. It has been suggested that we should add to this list of prohibited dogs. However, none of the key stakeholders, such as the police or local authorities, consider it would be very effective to add more types of dog to the prohibited list. In fact some stakeholders want the list taken away completely and for us to concentrate on what the dog does, not on the breed of dog. Like the police, the Government are not in favour of introducing new categories. We take the view that both deed and breed are important.

The four types of prohibited dogs are fighting dogs—dogs specifically bred for fighting—but the Act also recognises that any dog has the potential to be dangerous if incorrectly trained and left in the wrong hands, which is why there are offences for any dog to be dangerously out of control. It is why education for the public is so vitally important, along with early intervention that will allow the correct agencies, such as animal welfare organisations or local authorities, to intervene and provide advice in order to correct behaviour that could have a detrimental effect on the safety and welfare of the dog.

In addition to the extension of criminal liability to all places, the proposed amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act will include, for the first time, a specific offence for a dog attack on an assistance dog. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes that.

The Government believe that irresponsible dog ownership is best targeted through a number of actions and initiatives. The hon. Lady will know about the microchipping initiative that we also have under way. We will debate this many more times during the next few months. I hope that we will get the right results this time, unlike the last time the House legislated. I can only assure her—and through her, her constituents—that we take the issue of dangerous dogs extremely seriously. We want to get the right answers and we are bending every sinew to make sure that that is the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Veterinary Products Committee and its Sub-Committee 2012 (Annual Report)

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Written Statements

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

I have received the annual report of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committee 2012, which has been published today.

Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am pleased to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committee and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

Agricultural Wages Board

David Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) did the House a service by pointing out the disparity between last night’s excellent debate in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)—in which we heard contributions from all parts of the House, from Members who knew rural areas, knew the agricultural industry, were deeply committed to it and understood what the implications were—and today’s debate, which sadly has on occasions fallen short of that ideal.

That is not to say that there are not Members present who very much understand rural areas and represent their constituents, but that is not how I would characterise the opening speech from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), representing Islington Labour and its deeply patronising view of what happens in rural areas and the capabilities of people who work in rural areas. I resent that in the same way that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) did. However, we welcome the fact that the hon. Lady has finally returned to the Chamber to hear the conclusion, if not the substance, of the debate that she called.

Let us deal with the issues raised, the first of which is the lack of debate on this issue. I am extremely sorry: I regret that there have not been debates on the precise motions that came from the other place last week. However, to say that there has been no debate on the issue is nonsense. Over the last three years I have debated this subject for hours with Members represented in this debate. We have had endless debates on a subject on which everybody knew every side of the argument, so that claim is nonsense. We could even have addressed it—I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who made the point of order—when we had the debate on the Lords amendments the other day. Indeed, had the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna)—whom we are always glad to see in this country from his clubbing expeditions abroad—decided that this issue needed to be debated, as colleagues say it does, he could have done so. There was time to debate it but he chose to make speeches on other subjects instead. That is why we had no debate.

The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said that there was no meaningful consultation and that we did not notify people. I sent 13,000 letters to every single person or organisation covered by the order on agricultural wages, explaining what was to be done and asking for comments. That is unprecedented. It did not happen under the Labour Government but we did it because we wanted to ensure that people had the opportunity to respond.

The issue of Wales was raised. Let me let the House into a secret: I did not produce the legislation that provided for the devolution settlement in Wales, and Labour’s devolution settlement did not devolve employment issues to the Welsh Assembly Government. That is why such matters remain an issue for this House and this Government. No amount of argument from Welsh Ministers will change that settlement, only a change in the statutory format for the devolution settlement, which I do not believe the Labour party supports.

Let us consider the substance of this case, which is the crux of the matter.

[Jack Dromey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

I will because the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge on this subject and I therefore welcome his views.

[Jack Dromey]

Will the Minister tell the House at what point and why he moved from believing that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board would

“impoverish the rural working class”

to his current position of saying that it must be abolished as it is a “burdensome anomaly”?

[Mr Heath]

There were a number of points. There was the introduction of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, the Employment Act 2002, the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the Pensions Act 2008, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. All those provided the protections that I wanted for rural workers. They exist, and that is why we no longer need the Agricultural Wages Board, because it duplicates that position. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am glad he asked me that question.

In reality, when we debated these issues, Labour Members in support of the Labour Government resisted me when I spoke about rural poverty and denied that the biggest single removal of money from rural areas was the fuel escalator, which far outweighed anything that could possibly happen through the provision under discussion. They resisted my Fuel Poverty Bill applying to rural areas; they would not even allow for the existence of rural poverty, yet now they have the nerve to lecture the Government about what happens in rural areas.

Let me be clear because misinformation—deliberate I think—is being spread about some areas of this subject. There is a suggestion that people who work in the agriculture industry will no longer have any protection, which is absolute nonsense. The national minimum wage affects 99.5% of all workers in this country but is apparently hopelessly inadequate for the other 0.5%. However, I believe that the national minimum wage—which after the recent settlement is now well ahead of the first grade of pay for agricultural workers—is a valuable protection.

Every single worker who is currently paid under the protection of the Agricultural Wages Board will continue to receive that protection and to enjoy every aspect of their pay and conditions, and we shall ensure that they receive the benefit of legislative protection on that.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

I am afraid I have no time left.

Opposition Members are telling us that the basement protection for the lowest-paid workers is the 2p difference per hour between last year’s AWB rate and the national minimum wage, and that that makes all the difference to rural poverty. I am afraid I do not believe that.

As many Government Members have said, agricultural workers are a precious resource in our rural areas. Do Opposition Members not understand that farmers cannot get a skilled stock man or woman in many areas? They have to pay them to attract them. Do they not understand that farmers do not put someone on the national minimum wage in charge of a £500,000 machine? That is the reality of the modern agriculture industry.

We are therefore left with a statutory body that, uniquely, deals with career progression in one half of one industry—the AWB does not apply to everybody in food and farming. I simply do not believe that a statutory body is necessary to do that—we can do it in better ways. I want to see career progression, flexibility of contracts and modern conditions. Those are the keys to a modern and effective agricultural industry.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

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

Upland Sheep Farmers

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for securing this timely and important debate. It is also good to have so many colleagues present, expressing their concerns about the communities in their areas. We have heard from Members representing at least three of the nations of the United Kingdom. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) from Wales. From Northern Ireland, we have heard from the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie). From England, we have heard from the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney).

They all expressed the point of view of their constituents: a sense of horror at what has happened and a sense of the need to do everything we can to support a very vulnerable group of people and a vulnerable industry, because the last few weeks have been a disaster for many farmers in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. To experience such severe spring snowfall is almost unprecedented. We have never seen 10-ft drifts this late in the year. The point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was making, and others were reflecting, is that it hit some of our most economically vulnerable farmers at their busiest time, with the lambing season in full swing. No wonder there are people who are experiencing genuine trauma as a consequence.

As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, in the past few days the weather has improved, but when I visited Cumbria recently I saw a lot of snow still lying in the affected areas. Until that clears, which may take a considerable time in the highest areas, we will not be able to quantify the damage fully, but we know that in some individual cases it will be enormous.

I should stress that this problem is very geographically limited. There are some farms next to each other, one of which has been devastated and the next hardly touched. It is remarkable that some farms were very deeply affected and others were not. But for those that are affected there will be, as we already know, many thousands of dead sheep and lambs. As the hon. Member for Arfon said, although he said it in Welsh and I shall not attempt to do the same, a lot of those will be hefted sheep. They have been bred for generations on some of the roughest, highest, most isolated parts of the fells and uplands, and the loss of those animals only adds to the weight of the blow. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire told the House, he has had first-hand experience of the emotional trauma and the financial pain caused by losses on that scale.

I visited the north-west of England 10 days ago, to see the damage for myself. It was deeply shocking to see the effect on individual farmers. There is a real sense of devastation and there are people with massive worries about the future.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

That position was compounded by another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) made, about the burial arrangements and whether the EU burial regulations are robust enough to deal with those very exceptional circumstances. What is the Minister’s view on that?

[Mr Heath]

I will return to that, if I may, in just a moment.

I met farmers who have lived their entire lives in the uplands. These are not soft people. These are not weak people. These are some of the strongest, hardest men and women that you would care to meet in this country. They were feeling quite clearly devastated by the position they now find themselves in. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows, I was in Northern Ireland a few days ago as well, just talking to people about their experiences there—not my responsibility, as he will appreciate, in terms of the devolved settlement—and I heard exactly the same stories; exactly the same pain was being felt.

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

I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. The Minister is quite right that a lot of the effect of the snow was very local. Certainly in the Radnor forest in my constituency it was particularly difficult. I want to make the point that the whole sheep industry has suffered a very long period of very severe weather, which has left a lot of those ewes very weak going into lambing, so it is not just the people that have been affected by snow but almost the whole of the sheep industry that has had a very difficult time.

[Mr Heath]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In those extreme conditions of very heavy snowfall, with violent winds—in Cumbria, violent easterly winds coming in off the sea and causing the drifting—the sheep did what sheep do, which is to turn their backs to the wind and walk, and they found themselves trapped against walls or obstacles or under drifts. But what compounded that was that our sheep flocks, sadly, are not in good condition—because of the weather, because of events over many months now, because of the fact that, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, fluke is a real problem at the moment. Many issues have come together in a concatenation that is causing the difficulties that many of our livestock farmers face.

[Jim Shannon]

It was a pleasure to have the Minister in my constituency last week so that he could hear at first hand from the farmers in the area what the issues were. He will have heard from the farmers, but also from elected representatives from the Assembly, from Members of Parliament and from Members of the European Parliament, what measures the Northern Ireland Assembly had taken to help to address some of the issues for the farmers in Northern Ireland. Will he be able to use those examples to help other regional bodies, such as the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament?

[Mr Heath]

It is important that we all learn from one another. The answers will not be the same in every part of the United Kingdom, and the proportional scale of difficulties will be different. We must listen to what each other are doing and hopefully come towards the right solution, but also listen to what the farmers themselves in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are telling us. Certainly that is what I wanted to do with regard to England. I cannot speak for what happened in Northern Ireland and say whether it was the right solution, and similarly for Wales. I can see what has been done, but it seemed to me that my responsibility was to listen to the farmers and their representatives in England, and to do what they asked me to do so far as I could, in order to mitigate the difficulties that farmers were facing.

[Helen Goodman]

My constituent, John Warren, has specifically asked me to raise this point with the Minister. He is concerned that in Scotland the National Fallen Stock Company was used to distribute state aid. He asked me to urge the Minister not to go down the same route in England. He was concerned that if he did, the aid would not necessarily reach the right farmers and the farmers who had been most severely affected. He asked if a more direct mechanism might be used for distributing the aid that will be consequent on the losses due to the bad weather.

[Mr Heath]

I will come back to that point in a moment if I may, but the most important thing is that we reach those farmers who are severely affected, irrespective of whether they are registered with the National Fallen Stock Company. I want to make that absolutely clear, and I hope that that will help the hon. Lady’s constituent.

I want to put on record how grateful I am to the local NFU in Cumbria and the farmers themselves. I will mention Alistair Mackintosh and Robin Jenkinson in Corney Fell who gave their time to explain the consequences to me and to help me to understand what they were up against. I strongly feel that as a Minister one of the best ways to respond to a problem of this kind is simply to talk to people and see for oneself, and then, I hope, take the appropriate decisions.

I also want to put on record the strong impression that I had in Cumbria that the farming community and the wider rural community have responded in a positive and big way. A lot of mutual support went on and continues to go on. People helped one another, and farmers who were not affected searched for sheep on their neighbours’ holdings when they realised that they were in trouble. That is the country way and it is what we expect, but it was happening.

People who were not connected with farming also lent their support. I will mention one group of people, an organisation that occasionally we have differences of opinion with. It was pointed out to me how profoundly helpful the RSPCA officers in the area had been, lending a hand and getting stuck in, not in strict pursuance of their duties as RSPCA officers but because they cared about the animals and the farmers and wanted to do their bit.

I will also mention the banks, because they almost universally get a bad press. It was pointed out to me how helpful HSBC has been in the area and how it has gone out of its way and bent over backwards to offer local farmers support at a time when they desperately need it. I do not know whether that was universal and whether other banks followed suit, but it is important to put it on the record when people help and are prepared to be supportive.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. There has been a lot of talk about sheep, but I hope that the Minister also recognises that the dairy industry has been significantly affected. In some cases, cattle condition and milk yields have gone down as a result of the weather, so perhaps the banks and the companies that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that I understand that his intention is good, and why he wants to draw a parallel, but I am afraid that it is not relevant. We are on sheep farmers and we must stick to that, not start to stray into other matters, which he has done.

[Mr Heath]

Of course, I am happy to take your guidance on that, Mr Speaker. I will say that in the parts of the country I visited the casualties, almost exclusively, were sheep. It was the sheep flocks that were devastated, although of course other livestock are affected in such extreme circumstances.

I also want to say—this point was made by the hon. Member for Llanelli—that charities are playing a crucial role in supporting those in real hardship, sometimes simply by acting as a compassionate friend, which is exactly what is needed by people who often lead very isolated lives. Sometimes they just need a shoulder to lean on, and I think that it is extremely important that the charities provide that.

I have received many hundreds of e-mails and letters from individual members of the public who want to support the farmers affected through donations, directly with a pick and shovel, or in the supermarkets by buying British lamb. That is a message I want to get across: one thing that every single person can do to support the British sheep meat industry, wherever they live in the country, is go out and ask the supermarkets for British lamb. I hope that is recognised as one of the most powerful things they can do. Retailers—this is something the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said—can play a part in that, not only through the price of meat, but by highlighting the quality of British lamb and sheep meat.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister is absolutely right that we should be buying British lamb, and Welsh lamb, as a priority—[Interruption.] It is British, of course. Has he or his Department contacted other national Governments and Assemblies in this country to assess the impact the adverse weather has had on the sheep industry and other food industries and on the price for the consumer in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

As I think I said earlier, it is actually quite difficult to assess the impact now, but of course we will continue that dialogue with the devolved Administrations. At the moment, we are still effectively dealing with an emergency situation. Many factors affect the price of meat, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is an assessment that we need to make, and I am happy to work with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to do that.

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I understand that this is a crisis and that it takes time to assess it, but as we have discussed in the debate, a number of adverse weather conditions have impacted on the industry. Will he, working with the other Assemblies in the United Kingdom, conduct a proper assessment of the impact on food prices now, and not just for this crisis, but for previous adverse weather impacts?

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman says, there is the cumulative effect of a number of things. To be perfectly honest, this particular event, devastating though it has been for a significant number of farmers, but luckily not so many, will not in itself have a real effect on food prices, but I think that, in a wider context, what we have experienced over the past six to nine months will. We must also look at the effect that imports from other countries might be having, particularly on the price of British lamb—I will persist in saying British lamb, because I am the Minister responsible for agriculture in England as well as in the UK.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Is the Minister considering the issue of derogation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), and should the Prime Minister not be addressing this in his review of the European Union? Should not we in this country be able to make a decision at a local level about how farmers get rid of their stock?

[Mr Heath]

The answer is that we can, and I shall move on to that in moment. This is one area in which we do not have a difficulty in that respect, as I shall explain later.

[Rory Stewart]

Derogations have been important, not just for livestock disposal, but for the use of red diesel and the working time directive, and farmers in Cumbria and across the country have been grateful for the flexibility shown by the Government in all those derogations.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and perhaps this is an opportune time for me to set out some of the things we have done. I will not pretend that any of them provide the complete answer, but I hope that they have been of help. As he said, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has, as we have done previously, allowed farmers to use red diesel in their tractors to help grit and clear snow from public roads. That has been important in getting access to some areas. Without that derogation, I think it would be impossible to reach some isolated communities.

Importantly, we have also secured a temporary relaxation of the enforcement of the European Union drivers’ working hours, in order to ensure that essential supplies of animal feed deliveries have been able to get through. That is crucial for farmers who did not expect their sheep to need to be fed—that is despite the palatability or otherwise, and I entirely understand the point about how difficult it is to persuade a mountain sheep to suddenly switch to sheep nuts, but better that than the alternative, and it is important that those feed supplies get through.

We have also worked closely with the National Fallen Stock Company to arrange the best possible terms for the collection of dead animals. One of the most striking things is that every farmer has casualty animals and needs to call somebody to take away the carcases. Some have skips full of 50, 60 or 70 dead animals and the cost of disposing of them individually would have mounted up and become unsupportable. It is important, therefore, that the cheapest possible bulk terms were negotiated at an early stage with the NFSC.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others mentioned the rules for the burning or burial of livestock on farms. The rules for the disposal of carcasses are governed by the European Union’s Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which make it illegal, normally, to dispose of a carcass on-farm. However, a specific derogation in those regulations that the UK has authorised and continues to authorise allows for the on-farm disposal of carcasses if the conditions are too difficult to get them to a collection vehicle. That applies in a number of circumstances. I reminded local authorities, who can prosecute if they believe that there has been an infringement of those regulations, that they have the capacity to take into account the individual circumstances under the derogation, and that they should apply maximum flexibility in the affected areas. I am very happy that they were able to do that. I understand that precisely that provision was also used in Wales in order to provide for the local authorities there. The local authorities had the power to do so; we simply reminded them that they had that power, because it was important.

That has been helpful for some farmers, but not for all. What struck me in Cumbria was that on some high fell farms there was no way that an animal could be buried on that sort of terrain. I can perfectly well understand the strength of feeling against pyres being built and operated on the farms, but in a way it surprised me by its intensity. It is clear that farmers did not want to be reminded of very difficult times not so long ago, when the countryside was littered with funeral pyres of dead animals. They did not want that—they wanted those dead animals off the farm. That very much influenced my view of what we should do next.

To complete the initial variations that we made, Natural England has at our request temporarily lifted some of the land management requirements that normally apply to environmental stewardship agreements, which gives farmers a bit more flexibility to deal with the impact of the recent extreme weather.

Last Thursday I made a statement to the House about the effects of the severe weather. It confirmed the latest move that we have applied in England in our programme of support for English farmers. We have made up to £250,000 available to reimburse farmers for the cost of removing sheep killed in the snow. The funds will go towards the very specific problem of removing animals that have died on-farm as a direct result of the March snowfall. I have seen some comment and some suggestion that that is not enough. It is enough, according to our best information from the National Farmers Union—the representatives of the farmers. We have relied on the information that they have given us in order to meet the immediate needs.

[Ms Ritchie]

Could the Minister find out whether it would be possible to get permission from the European Union to use any unspent rural development moneys to help regenerate uphill sheep farmers and their farms?

[Mr Heath]

I think the situation will be different for each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, so I hesitate to give the hon. Lady an answer that might mislead her about the position in Northern Ireland. We are currently negotiating pillar two payments. We are not in a position to know what the future funding arrangements will be there. In negotiating the CAP, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are very aware that the needs of upland farmers must be met because, as we have already indicated, that is an extremely vulnerable sector of the agricultural industry.

[Dr McCrea]

The Minister has been very generous in taking interventions. Are any other finances available from Europe that can help the regions in the midst of a crisis like the present one?

[Mr Heath]

We have investigated that, and the honest answer is that there probably are not at present, because we are talking about total sums that are below the threshold level for the crisis payments. We have a further difficulty in the United Kingdom: the rebate arrangements come into play, which sometimes makes it difficult for us to avail ourselves of specific funding streams from the European Union in any case. In this instance I do not believe there is any immediate funding that we could draw on which would alleviate the situation.

To return to the scheme that I announced, the amount that I indicated reflects the very latest information on stock losses identified by the National Farmers Union. We are working closely with the NFU, the National Fallen Stock Company and other industry representatives to finalise the arrangements for funding and ensure that that goes to farmers in the worst affected areas and those who have suffered the greatest losses.

Details of the scheme and how to apply will be made public as soon as possible. Farmers should retain receipts and other documentary evidence, so that the collection of fallen stock can be verified once the scheme is under way. I hope that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will make her constituents aware of that. It is certainly not my intention to limit payments to those who have registered with or used the National Fallen Stock Company, but I want to find the most efficient mechanism for distributing public funds so that they get to the people who need them as quickly as possible.

Funding has been made available in Northern Ireland and Scotland to meet the costs of fallen stock collection services for farmers affected by the severe weather. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire said, the Welsh Government have taken a number of steps to help farmers, including making a donation to farming charities to assist them in supporting farming families.

I am pleased that a robust programme of support has been made available. However, I emphasise that many individual farmers will face a huge bill to replace their lost animals. We have to make that point to people who do not understand this matter. There is not only the cost of recovering and looking after rescued animals, including the extra feed costs, but the loss of a significant part this year’s lamb crop. Because of the loss of hefted ewes, a number of the surviving lambs will also have to be retained. There is therefore a cumulative effect on farmers.

It is right that we have focused on what is happening immediately on the ground in north-west England and the Welsh hills, but we also need to look towards the longer term, as has been said. In May, the Secretary of State will therefore host a summit of farming sector representatives, farming charities and banks. The meeting will highlight the financial impact that the exceptional weather—not just this event, but across the board—is having on some farm businesses. We will see what more can be done to support farmers who are struggling financially.

This is an exceptional circumstance, and I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss it this evening. I make no apologies for the number of interventions that I have taken from hon. Members, because this matter is crucial to the communities that they represent and I wanted them to have replies. Farmers are by no means out of the woods yet. DEFRA officials and Ministers will remain in close contact with farmers’ organisations and those who are helping to deal with the problems on the ground. I thank them all for their tremendous efforts to deal with this huge problem. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and other hon. Members for giving us the opportunity to discuss a matter that we should be discussing. I hope that the things that we have done have lightened the load of those who have been seriously affected by this disastrous situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Sheep Industry (Severe Weather)

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing details of additional support for those sheep farmers in England who have suffered devastating losses as a result of the severe weather last month.

Up to £250,000 will be available to reimburse farmers for the very specific problem of removing animals that have died on-farm through asphyxiation, starvation or hypothermia as a direct result of the March snowfall. This level of funding reflects the latest information on stock losses identified by the National Farmers Union. We will now be working with the NFU, the National Fallen Stock Company and other industry representatives to finalise arrangements for funding and to ensure that it is well targeted.

This funding will build on the programme of support which we have already put in place to help affected farmers. DEFRA has permitted the burial or burning of livestock on site if the conditions are too difficult to get carcases to a collection vehicle. We have relaxed the rules on drivers’ hours to allow extra time for essential deliveries of animal feed. Natural England has temporarily lifted some of the land management requirements that normally apply to environmental stewardship agreements, so that farmers and growers have more flexibility to deal with the impact of this extreme and unseasonable weather.

DEFRA has worked closely with the National Fallen Stock Company to encourage collectors to offer discounted rates for removing more than 10 sheep at a time. Farmers who have suffered heavy losses will be reimbursed in line with these discounted rates for the sheep they have paid to remove.

We also need to consider the longer term. In May, the Secretary of State will host a meeting of industry representatives, farming charities and banks to highlight the financial impact this exceptional weather is having on farm businesses and to see what more can be done to support farmers who are struggling financially.

As I saw on my recent visit to Cumbria and listening to those involved, the loss of sheep during some of the worst snow in living memory has taken a terrible emotional and financial toll on those farmers affected, which is why I am happy to announce this additional measure today. I am grateful to all those who have offered and provided assistance to them at a very difficult time. I call upon the public and food businesses to help our farmers by buying British lamb.

Dangerous Dogs

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Written Statements

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

On 9 April, DEFRA published a draft Bill amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for pre-legislative scrutiny by the EFRA Committee.

The proposed amendments to the 1991 Act will extend the law to make it an offence for a dog to be dangerously out of control in any place, including all private property. The provisions make it explicit that a dog attack on an assistance dog, for example a guide dog for the blind or deaf, will be an aggravated offence. The changes will also make clear that the courts should take into account the character of the owner or keeper as well as the temperament of the dog along with any other circumstances when deciding whether a dog poses a danger to public safety.

The Government are determined to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and promote more responsible ownership with a range of measures and proposals. The two clauses in the draft Bill I have published propose important changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and are one element of the Government’s plans to address this issue. The Government’s statement on tackling irresponsible dog ownership on 6 February 2013, Official Report, column 15WS, set out the detail of other areas where we are taking action, including the compulsory microchipping of all dogs in England by 6 April 2016, the provision of a set of flexible powers and tools for police and local authorities to tackle irresponsible dog ownership in the context of antisocial behaviour and work with the animal welfare charities to tackle irresponsible advertising of pets on the internet.

Wild Animals in Circuses

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Written Statements

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

I have today published a draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.

In line with previous ministerial written statements on 1 March 2012, Official Report, column 41WS, and 12 July 2012, Official Report, column 43WS, we are today fulfilling our commitment to publish draft legislation this parliamentary Session that sets out a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England.

Wild animals, for the purposes of the draft Bill, are defined as any animal belonging to a kind that is not normally domesticated in Great Britain.

The Government have already introduced the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 to safeguard the welfare of wild animals still in use in travelling circuses in England.

The draft Bill makes it an offence for any circus operator to use a wild animal in performance or exhibition in a travelling circus in England. The Government propose to give circus operators until 1 December 2015 to remove any wild animals from their circus before the offence comes into force.

This “grace period” is to allow operators of travelling circuses a reasonable period of time to adapt their businesses and organise suitable care arrangements for their wild animals.

Copies of the draft Bill are available in the Vote Office.

Horsemeat Fraud

David Heath Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on developments since the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement on 26 March 2013, Official Report, column 90WS, on the latest results from the testing of beef products for the presence of horsemeat and on plans for reviewing lessons learned.

On 9 April, the Food Standards Agency published further test results from the first two phases of the UK-wide authenticity survey of beef products on sale at a range of retail and catering outlets. These samples were collected by local authorities and were tested for both horse and pig DNA by public analysts. Results for four of the remaining five samples which had been in dispute have been confirmed. Two samples were found to contain horse DNA at the 1% reporting limit. Neither product was found to contain the veterinary drug phenylbutazone (known as “bute”) or pig DNA. The two other disputed samples, which did not contain horse DNA, were confirmed as being below 1% pig DNA and neither product was labelled as halal or kosher. This leaves results from one disputed sample still to be reported from the further independent analysis.

Therefore, from these latest results, out of a total of 362 samples taken from the first two phases of the UK-wide local authority survey, 354 were clear of both horse and pig DNA at the 1% reporting limit. Four samples have been confirmed as testing positive for horse DNA over 1% and three samples contained pig DNA over the 1% reporting limit. All these products were withdrawn from sale following receipt of the first test results and named on the Food Standards Agency website.

These results are in addition to the results of 5,430 industry tests reported to the House on 4 March 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, which indicated that over 99% of processed beef products found no horse DNA at or above 1%. The findings of phases 1 and 2 of the local authority survey are consistent with those from the tests carried out by the food industry. The results confirm that adulteration of beef products with horse or pork meat has been limited to a relatively small number of products.

The food industry has agreed to continue to provide data on their ongoing tests for horse DNA in processed beef products, with identification of individual products testing positive above the 1% reporting limit. Future reports on industry testing in the UK will be published quarterly, and the Food Standards Agency will publish the next results in early June. It will continue to report individual products testing positive above the 1% reporting limit as soon as they are confirmed by the food industry.

On 9 April Asda reported to the Food Standards Agency a positive test for the presence of very low levels of bute in its 340 gram tins of smart price corned beef. This product was tested by Asda as part of the industry testing programme and found to be positive for horse DNA above 1% and was withdrawn from Asda’s shelves on 8 March 2013. As with all products that tested positive for horse DNA over 1%, it was tested for bute, as required by the Food Standards Agency. Bute was present at a level of four parts per billion—4ppb. This level is close to the limits of laboratory detection so a very low level of bute has been found in this product. Since the horsemeat investigation began in January 2013, this is the only meat product that has tested positive for bute. Asda has recalled the product.

The chief medical officer has previously stated that horsemeat containing phenylbutazone at very low levels presents a very low risk to human health. In the UK horse carcasses must have a negative bute test before they are allowed to enter the food chain. The Food Standards Agency is currently investigating this specific issue and will take action as necessary. It also notified the European Commission on 10 April about this positive test result for bute via the rapid alert system for food and feed.

On 10 April, the Netherlands food and consumer product safety authority (NVWA) recalled 50,000 tonnes of meat sold as beef across Europe over a two-year period that may contain horsemeat. The Netherlands food and consumer product safety authority said 370 different companies around europe and 132 more in the Netherlands were affected by the recall because they bought meat from a Dutch trading company. The FSA have been informed by the Dutch authorities that a small number of UK businesses may have received products from the trading company that operates under the names of Willy Selten and Wiljo. As the NVWA was unable to say with certainty whether all of the customers had been identified, the authority took the unusual step of publishing Selten and Wiljo’s names. FSA are following up with these businesses as a matter of urgency.

At a European level, we are continuing to work closely with the Commission and other member states, sharing information via the rapid alert system for food and feed. The Commission have recently drawn up a five-point action plan including specific measures on the following: fighting food fraud, testing programme, horse passports, official controls and origin labelling. A copy of this plan has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This five-point plan was discussed at an EU working group meeting of experts on 10 April which was a useful exchange of views in advance of further discussions at official level later this week. We have submitted UK data on our own testing programmes to the Commission. We expect the Commission to publish a summary of tests conducted by all member states on 16 April.

At its open meeting on 17 April, the board of the Food Standards Agency will consider a recommendation that it commissions an external review of its response to incidents of the adulteration of processed beef products with horse and pig meat and DNA. Such a review would be expected to make recommendations to the June board meeting on the relevant capacity and capabilities of the FSA and any actions that should be taken to maintain or build them.

With the Secretary of State for Health’s agreement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce a strategic review of the incident and its implications for the food chain and regulatory framework on behalf of our Departments shortly. This will be wide ranging, to restore and maintain consumer confidence in the food chain and consider the responsibilities of food businesses, and practice throughout the wider food chain, including: audit, testing, food authenticity, food safety and health issues. It will advise us of vulnerabilities within the food chain and its regulatory framework that might be exploited for other fraudulent activity. The review will also consider any wider implications of the Food Standards Agency review’s findings.

I reiterate that food fraud is completely unacceptable. Consumers must have confidence in the food they buy and have every right to expect that food is correctly described. UK investigations on this issue continue with the City of London police acting as the co-ordinating police authority. It is also right that any weaknesses in our food system and the controls it is subject to are identified and dealt with. I will continue to keep the House informed.