Oral Answers to Questions
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
2. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of a discard ban on the inshore fishing fleet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We recently launched a consultation on the implementation of the discard ban, which will help us to make that assessment. The consultation is being used to identify how to phase in the ban, how to allocate increases in quotas, where to introduce exemptions and how to manage the under-10 metre quota pool. The discard ban can provide significant benefits for all sectors of the fleet.
Damian Collins
Trawlermen in Folkestone, Hythe and Dungeness have raised with me their concerns about the lack of quota for the inshore fishing fleet and the potentially devastating impact of the discard ban. Will the Minister urgently consider making more quota available for the inshore fishing fleet and granting an exemption from the discard ban?
George Eustice
While the common fisheries policy does not allow the exemption of a whole fleet, there are other exemptions—for instance, exemptions for species that survive after being discarded, and if handling discards is disproportionately costly. On quota, we are in the process of permanently realigning some of it from producer organisations to the inshore fleet. In addition, as part of this consultation, we are considering giving the inshore fleet a greater share of the quota uplift that forms part of the CFP.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Given the collapse of our bass stocks, and the fact that the latest figures show a worrying 30% increase in the number of commercial landings of bass, will the Minister please finally take meaningful action to save our bass? Will he, for instance, provide for an immediate increase in the minimum landing size, which is something that I signed off 10 years ago when I was the fisheries Minister?
George Eustice
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been pursuing this issue. As he will know, at the December Council we argued strongly for measures to be taken on bass. We pressed the European Commission to take emergency measures to ban pair trawling, which was done in the new year. We are currently discussing with other member states and the Commission the possibility of a bag limit for anglers, and also catch limits for the remainder of the commercial fleet. I can also tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are considering raising the minimum landing size nationally.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
May I urge my hon. Friend to review the application of the rules relating to the ban on the return of fish that might survive, particularly hand-lined mackerel? I have some experience of this, and I know that the vast majority survive. It is absurd for fishermen to be told that they cannot return those fish.
George Eustice
Mackerel were included in the pelagic discard ban that was considered last year, but we are giving serious consideration to the survivability rates of white fish, particularly flatfish such as sole and plaice. I shall be happy to look into the specific issue of mackerel hand-lining in Cornwall, and to keep it under constant review. We did manage to secure an exemption for the Cornish sardine industry, which was a big success.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
There is still a huge amount of uncertainty about how the ban can be made workable in the context of mixed fisheries in the North sea. What are Ministers doing to ensure that so-called choke species do not end up choking off the livelihoods of not just the fishermen in the white fish fleet, but the onshore processors?
George Eustice
I know that people are concerned about the challenges involved in the implementation of a discard ban. That is why we have had to start thinking about it at an early stage, and why we have issued the consultation in the way that we have. As for choke species such as hake, which is often cited in Scotland, we will be phasing in the ban over five years, and we will start with the species that define the fishery, so the ban on some of those species would not apply until a date closer to 2020.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I believe that the discard ban is absolutely right, although it will obviously take some time to get its implementation right. What will be done about fish that are landed and may or may not be fit for human consumption, but could be used as fish food, or even for farming purposes?
George Eustice
We are discussing that with processors and port authorities, but we believe that we have enough processing capacity to create fishmeal, although there may be problems with transport from the ports to the locations where the fishmeal is processed. We want to change fishing behaviour, and to reduce the amount of unwanted fish that is landed by means of more selective gears and changes in fishing patterns.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the regional discrepancy in net configurations. The Northern Ireland requirement is 300 mm, while the requirement in the Republic of Ireland is 80 mm, and there are different requirements in Scotland, Wales and England. Has the Minister discussed with regional authorities and the Government of the Republic the introduction of more uniformity in net configuration, in the context of the discard ban?
George Eustice
I shall be happy to look into that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nephrops industry is particularly important in Northern Ireland, and we managed, against the odds, to secure an increase in the total allowable catch at the December Council. That will be good for the Northern Ireland fleet. Different countries take different approaches when it comes to technical measures; that is an important aspect of the devolved entity that we want the common fisheries policy to become.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
3. What assessment she has made of the role the public can play in supporting bees and pollinators.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
4. What assessment she has made of trends in the performance of the Rural Payments Agency since 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Under this Government, the Rural Payments Agency has dealt with the historical issues of late payments to farmers, which were a feature under the last Government. This year it released payments to 97.4% of claimants within the first month, and 2013-14 was the agency’s most successful year to date, with more customers being paid on the first day than ever before, and with high customer satisfaction scores.
Bill Wiggin
I must declare my interest in farming. Will the basic payments system be ready by 15 May? Why are farmers expected to draw ineligible features, instead of satellite mapping being used? What sort of support is there if they make any errors in the process, so that they are not being set up to fail?
George Eustice
On the first point, I can report that over 75% of farmers are now registered on the system. Some of them are experiencing issues with the slowness of the mapping system, and we are working to address that. On my hon. Friend’s question about why they have to map, they have always had to map ineligible features—that is a requirement of the EU regulations—but they are entered on to the final application by digitisers, who check that the area is mapped correctly.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Stephen Wyrill, national chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association, says that the Department’s online system for farmers to claim under the basic payment scheme is “heading for carnage”, and Guy Smith, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, says that its concern will turn to “justified alarm” if full mapping functionality is not operating by this weekend as promised. Many farmers depend for their survival on this payment. Can the Minister give an undertaking that all farmers will be able to make their claim online by 15 May?
George Eustice
We have been working closely with the farming industry on this. Under this system, this was always going to be an iterative process. We wanted to put the system in place in stages and instalments. We have 75% of farmers on already, we are addressing the issue of the speed of the system, and we are looking at ways of expediting things for certain land types, so that they can bypass parts of the land eligibility criteria. I should also point out that we have a network of 50 digital support centres to help those farmers who require help.
Maria Eagle
With 25% of farmers not yet registered and the deadline fast approaching, Farmers Weekly is reporting that only 236 farmers have gone for help to the 50 support centres, which is fewer than five per centre. Those who have registered—96% of them did so by phone, not online—are reporting that the online system has constant error messages and general slowness, that field information is not appearing, and that the mapping function does not work. Is the Minister planning a paper-based plan B, in case his online system collapses or is not fit for purpose?
George Eustice
Our plan is to make the system work and to ensure that those farmers who need help can go into digital support centres. We anticipate that those centres will be busier in April, but we have ensured that they have sufficient capacity to upscale and to help farmers. It is important to recognise that about half of all farmers have only permanent pasture, and the requirement for them to map their details is lesser than it is for arable farmers. We are looking at ways of expediting this process.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
This Government should be hugely proud of the massive improvement in the Rural Payments Agency, compared with the chaos of a few years ago. We should also give thanks to its chief executive, Mark Grimshaw, for his work on making that happen. It is a fact that the IT systems will be critical in future. They will have to work, but we also need to enable farmers to use IT out in rural areas of the country that often have no access. The Minister will of course do everything he can to make the system work, but will he also redouble his efforts to persuade other Government Departments that rural broadband is absolutely critical to this important industry?
George Eustice
Yes. We recognise the importance of rural broadband, which is why Broadband Delivery UK has invested hundreds of millions of pounds to bring broadband to rural areas. I know that my hon. Friend was involved in commissioning the Cap D system—the common agricultural policy delivery system—and he will recognise that we have ensured that it can operate at quite low speeds of around 2 megabits per second. That will ensure that most farmers are able to use it, but we have established the network of digital support centres for those who are not.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
5. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department’s environmental key performance indicators are met.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
9. What assessment she has made of the lessons that can be learned from the experiences of other countries in dealing with bovine tuberculosis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The success of the bovine TB eradication policies pursued in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the Republic of Ireland demonstrates the need to bear down on the disease effectively in both cattle and wildlife.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that lessons from Ireland, in particular, show that where there is TB in wildlife it must be tackled through culling as part of any comprehensive strategy to tackle TB? If that had happened years ago when TB was known to be moving towards Cheshire at the rate of 1 mile a year, Cheshire’s farmers would not be suffering the difficulties they are today. Does he also agree that this should not be such a political issue? It is about supporting our farmers and eradicating TB.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point: it is not possible to eradicate this disease without tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. She rightly says that the previous Government put their head in the sand and did nothing. This is a slow-moving, difficult disease and it has to be hit hard and early, which the previous Government failed to do. At a recent NFU conference Labour confirmed again that, irrespective of the evidence and the advice of the chief veterinary officer, it would abandon the culls.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Despite the Government’s protestations, the previous Labour Government killed more badgers than any other Government. [Laughter.] Yes. The £50 million trial over 10 years concluded that such action gave no meaningful contribution to the eradication of tuberculosis. The Government’s badger culls have not just been a disaster for wildlife, but come at a huge financial cost. In the first year of the culls, the Government spent £9.8 million. With Ministers proposing to extend the badger culls, possibly to 10 areas and after that to 40 areas, how much more can taxpayers expect to fork out for these ineffective and inhumane badger culls?
George Eustice
The random badger cull trials that were carried out demonstrated incontrovertibly that, over time, the cull did lead to a significant reduction in the disease, which is why the experts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recommend a cull as part of the strategy. It is absolutely wrong for Labour to say that it will ignore the evidence and the advice of the chief veterinary officer. On the costs in the first year, the cull clearly had elements of analysis, post mortem, research and policing that will not be present when we roll it out more widely. We are committed to having a badger cull as part of our 25-year strategy.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
10. If she will take steps to increase the number of Natura 2000 sites in England.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T5. I hope that the Minister’s office passed on notice of my question; I appreciate that it is quite obscure. Musicians face anxiety when they travel to the United States because if their instruments contain even small amounts of ivory they fall foul of the convention on international trade in endangered species regulations. Will the Minister assure me that CITES certificates will be recognised by the US authorities and, in the longer term, may we perhaps look at an exemption for vintage instruments? I think that mother of pearl as well as ivory is an issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We are aware of these concerns and certainly want the US Government to recognise CITES musical instrument certificates, to ease the task of musicians travelling to the US with instruments that contain small amounts of legal ivory. Ultimately, these are matters for the US Government to determine. However, we intend to approach the European Commission and other EU member states to propose a joint approach to ask the US to clarify its position, with the aim of providing the reassurances the hon. Lady seeks.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T4. So much done, so much still to do. Will my right hon. Friend commit to giving statutory status as consultees to water companies for fracking, major developments and houses and roads? In the time available, what will she look back on and see as her Department’s major achievement over the past five years?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of the current price war in the supermarkets with regard to the price of a loaf of bread. Sainsbury’s is selling Hovis at 75p a loaf. What can Ministers do to ensure that that does not adversely impact people working in the baking industry?
George Eustice
The supermarket adjudicator requires retailers to stick to the terms of contracts, not retrospectively to hit suppliers or unreasonably request them to take part in promotions. Through the groceries code and the adjudicator, we have measures in place to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman cites.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
T7. Shoreham in my constituency has a flourishing houseboat community, which adds to the colour of our town. Alas, it also adds to the colour of the water flowing into Shoreham harbour until high tide washes it away, as few boats have sewage tanks or are linked to drainage on the shore. Do the Government have any plans to tighten up on pollution from boats used as homes?
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s help for dairy farming through exports, public procurement and general support, but what talks has she had with the banks? I think milk prices will improve, but the banks need to support farmers in the meantime.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There will be short-term cash-flow pressures on farmers who are currently receiving low prices and in some cases have quite high costs. I have had a meeting already with the banks to discuss this and to encourage them to show forbearance. As the Secretary of State said earlier, we have also been encouraging HMRC to show forbearance to those farmers facing difficulties, and I will continue to monitor the issue closely.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
May I urge the Government to reconsider their policy? Although they offer support for bovine TB badger vaccination projects in edge areas, they do not provide that same support in so-called hot-spot areas. I have been working with the Zoological Society of London on a project which has just been very successfully rolled out for its first pilot this year in Penwith. I urge the Government to look at that seriously, because projects in hot spots could make a telling and important contribution to bearing down on bovine TB.
George Eustice
I have met the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue. He is aware that we have made an offer at DEFRA to give some support to that project in his constituency, notably to provide it with free vaccines and some equipment. However, the edge area vaccination scheme is in the edge area for a very good reason: the vaccine does not cure badgers that already have the disease. There is logic to using the vaccine in the edge area, to create a buffer to prevent the spread of the disease, but less so in the high-risk areas.
Marine Management Organisation (Triennial Review)
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Today I am publishing the report of the triennial review of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), which was launched by DEFRA’s then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on 10 September 2013. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.
The MMO exists to make a significant contribution to sustainable development in the marine areas and to promote the UK Government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The purpose behind its creation was to bring marine management activities from across Government into one place, to provide a more integrated approach to fisheries management, marine planning, licensing and conservation.
The review has concluded that the functions of the MMO are necessary for the UK Government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The function should continue to be delivered by a non-departmental public body; and the MMO remains the right body to deliver them.
The review also considered the MMO’s governance and control arrangements. It found many positive features and concluded that it has shown improvements in service delivery since 2010. However, the review has made some recommendations.
The full report of the review of the MMO can be found on the website at: http://www.gov.uk and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS366]
International Endangered Species
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this most appropriate debate as today is, as he pointed out, world wildlife day. Individuals and organisations will be marking the day with events around the world, and I note that the right hon. Gentleman has been particularly busy highlighting the problems our wildlife face with the release of his “Animal Countdown” CD. Before this debate I went online to listen to it and it is not bad—it is pretty good and certainly does highlight this very important issue. On world wildlife day, we celebrate the intrinsic value of animals and plants, but we also highlight the severe threats that they face. Those threats range from habitat destruction and climate change to the illegal wildlife trade and poaching, which is threatening to decimate many species, as he pointed out.
Much of our ongoing effort to combat those threats is undertaken through work in the relevant international conventions, including the convention on biological diversity and the convention on international trade in endangered species. The UK Government provide direct support to countries that are rich in biodiversity but poor in financial resource. This includes work in our overseas territories through the globally respected Darwin initiative. More than 900 projects totalling around £110 million have been funded since 1992, supporting habitat and species from elephants to the mountain chicken, which is not actually a chicken but a type of frog native to the Caribbean islands of Dominica and Montserrat. The global tiger initiative has brought together all the tiger range states, as well as concerned Governments —including that of the UK—and academics and non-governmental organisations involved in the global tiger recovery programme. The programme aims to double the number of tigers in the wild by 2022, and the UK has committed funding equivalent to $500,000 to support that work.
This year’s theme for world wildlife day is wildlife crime. In recent years, it is the scourge of poaching that has focused many minds as it threatens some of the world’s most iconic species, including elephants, rhinos and tigers. There was wide recognition that more needed to be done and I am pleased to say that this Government are a global leader in efforts by the international community to tackle this issue, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged. The illegal wildlife trade not only threatens the future existence of whole species; it devastates already vulnerable communities co-existing with these species, drives corruption and undermines our efforts to cut poverty. The right hon. Gentleman gave an example of gunmen killing all the animals and all the rangers. Murder is being committed, and we should recognise the fact that many of the rangers who are trying to fight the scourge of poaching are putting their lives at risk. This illegal trade strikes at the very heart of our goals for good governance, for the protection of national and regional security, and for sustainable economic development.
The number of animals being poached is truly horrific. At least 20,000 elephant poaching deaths were recorded in 2013. In 2014, the Government of South Africa reported that 1,215 rhinoceroses were killed by poachers. That is a staggering increase, up from 13 killed in 2007. This wholesale slaughter is being driven by greed and by organised criminal syndicates. The price of ivory in China trebled between 2010 and 2014.
Recognising the rapidly deteriorating situation, in February last year the Government hosted the London conference on the illegal wildlife trade. High-level representatives from 41 countries and 10 international organisations came together to agree a set of urgent actions. The conference delivered an ambitious political declaration containing 25 commitments to take action on, for example, reducing demand for illegal wildlife products, ensuring effective legal frameworks and deterrents across the globe, strengthening law enforcement and supporting sustainable livelihoods. Those 25 commitments included Governments committing for the first time to renounce the use of any products from species threatened with extinction, and Governments supporting the CITES commercial prohibition on international trade in elephant ivory until the survival of elephants in the wild is no longer threatened by poaching. Governments also committed to treating poaching and trafficking as a serious organised crime in the same category as drugs, arms and people trafficking.
In December last year, we announced funding for 14 projects as part of the illegal wildlife trade challenge fund, worth almost £4 million. That will help developing countries to tackle the illegal wildlife trade, and it is in addition to the five projects that we funded earlier in 2014. This means that we are now supporting 19 projects with a value of more than £5 million over the next four years.
There is also some evidence that other countries are starting to follow our lead. Over the past year, there have been many positive examples of countries taking action to deliver the commitments made in the London declaration. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, just last week China announced a 12-month immediate ban on the importation of carved ivory, in support of its efforts to protect elephants in Africa. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge is currently in China as part of his visit to the far east. He is undertaking engagements there in support of his work to combat the illegal wildlife trade and support wildlife conservation. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs raised the issue of illegal wildlife trade during her recent visit to China at the beginning of this year. In Vietnam, the penal code is being amended to incorporate stronger and more deterrent sanctions against environmental crimes, including the illegal trade in endangered species.
UK enforcement bodies play an active role in combating wildlife trafficking, and I commend the excellent work of the national wildlife crime unit and the UK Border Force. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the future funding of that unit. Like him, I have been passionate about supporting it, and DEFRA certainly made funding available to it up until 2016. Having been in government, he will be familiar with the way in which funding works, and we will have to wait until the next spending review period before we can make specific commitments on it. I hope he will accept that in recognising the unit’s good work, I am sending a strong signal in support of its efforts to tackle this difficult problem. Hon. Members may recall a case last year of an interception at Heathrow of very rare San Salvador rock iguanas being smuggled from the Bahamas. We were able to return 12 of these critically endangered species to their natural habitat. Sadly, one of the iguanas died, but I am pleased to say that the criminals responsible received 12-month custodial sentences. The success of that operation was due to the excellent work carried out by the Border Force CITES enforcement team based at Heathrow.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is more to be done on intercepting smuggling during transportation. I therefore welcome the creation of an international taskforce to examine the role of the transportation industry in the trafficking of illegal wildlife products. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge launched that in December 2014, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Leader of the House—the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned him—has agreed to chair that important taskforce. The taskforce, including representatives from the global transport industry, will develop industry-wide protocols for the sector to strengthen measures it can take to help to eliminate this trafficking. Through the illegal wildlife trade challenge fund, the Government are supporting work such as the border point project, stopping illegal wildlife trade in the horn of Africa. We are also providing funding to the Born Free Foundation to improve enforcement by sending experts to border points to increase the knowledge and skills of local officials.
The right hon. Gentleman finished his speech slightly sooner than I thought he would, so my officials have been working overtime to ensure that I have answers to some of his questions. He asked about the serious and organised crime strategy, and I can confirm that it does cover the illegal wildlife trade. I have covered the point about the national wildlife crime unit; we support the work it does, but, obviously, we are bound by the fact that we have to await the next spending review before making any final commitments on that front. He also asked for an update on any progress being made on updating the CITES regulations. The Government are continuing to take forward the review of CITES regulations, and consultation on proposed changes is taking place. We recognise that the remaining time is limited within this Parliament, but it remains this Government’s intention to progress as far as we can the laying of that updated legislation before the House.
Norman Baker
Just before the Minister concludes, will he say something about the issue of online trading and what steps the Government can take to alert buyers to the potential illegality of their purchases?
George Eustice
I have answered parliamentary questions on that matter, and my understanding is that that is something the National Crime Agency was doing. There used to be a designated person dealing with that matter. The fact that that post no longer exists does not mean that the work is not being done. It simply means that there is not a single designated person doing it. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about this matter. As he will know, this specific issue is within the portfolio of my noble Friend Lord de Mauley, and I will ask him to clarify the position on online crimes.
The Government are strongly committed to protecting our world’s endangered species, and in particular to supporting the international community to tackle poaching and the trafficking of wildlife. As the follow-up to the London conference, the Government of Botswana are hosting a second conference in Kasane. That conference is an opportunity to recognise the progress that has been made globally on combating the illegal wildlife trade, and importantly to maintain the priority and focus directed towards this issue achieved at the London conference.
The UK has worked closely to support the Government of Botswana in developing a range of ambitious outcomes. We expect Governments to commit to actions that build on the London declaration. That is likely to include strengthening work to reduce the demand and supply sides for illegal wildlife products, and action to tackle money laundering and other kinds of financial crime associated with the illegal wildlife trade. Those are the sorts of action that we need to take. As an international community, we need to do everything possible to ensure that these magnificent and yet sadly—in some cases—endangered species have all the protection that humanity can offer.
Question put and agreed to.
Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
George Eustice
I have discussed this issue with Shechita UK, and everyone acknowledges that the hind quarters are normally sold on the open market. It would be conceded that most of it goes to Smithfield, possibly to be sold to caterers, but Shechita UK will also maintain that some of it goes to halal markets.
Dr Offord
I apologise to the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), because I have been corrected. I can only say that some of it may indeed go into the food chain, but not in the way that was anticipated—that is, the whole carcase of an animal. I think we are dancing on the head of a pin if we are saying that only some might go into the food chain.
What is humane slaughter? Some people say that slaughter is humane if an animal is protected from unavoidable excitement, pain or suffering, and that that requires the animal to be restrained and stunned, rendering it insensitive to pain before it is allowed to bleed to death. I do not accept that. I too have been to an abattoir, and I have also been around cattle when they have been killed in other places. When cattle enter any kind of contraption, including the back of a lorry, their stress levels increase.
In preparation for this debate, I read Jon Henley’s January 2009 article in The Guardian about the European pig industry. Some animals experience a lifetime of distress and suffering. The article documented pigs being kept on slatted concrete floors; pregnant sows being kept in cages so small that they could not move; piglets being castrated without pain relief; and tails routinely being docked to prevent animals from attacking each other. The food that enters the UK food chain from the EU is never discussed, which is peculiar. Muslim and Jewish people do not eat pork, but no one ever discusses such issues—we seem to be focusing on the same issues time and again. We should certainly spend time on other issues, such as the trimming of hens’ beaks; the mechanical mis-stunning of animals; the fly-grazing of horses; puppy farming; the culling of chicks on the basis of sex; and the cultivation of endangered turtle meat in places such as the Cayman Islands. None of that is ever covered.
It is worth highlighting that the petition has come about with great haste, in contrast with the British Veterinary Association petition, which has taken almost a year to come to fruition. I would like the new BVA chairman to stop fanning the hysteria around this issue and look at what veterinarians are doing to ensure animal welfare in slaughter houses.
I will not talk about shechita in particular, because it has already been covered, but I want to make a point about why some of the methods we have discussed have come about. The whole motivation in the large-scale factory abattoirs is to speed up the process and prevent the animal from thrashing around at the point of slaughter. That is why stunning occurs. Animal welfare organisations claim to have adopted the idea of stunning in an effort to raise levels of animal welfare, but the evidence in support of the animal welfare benefits is inconclusive. Mechanical methods frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in great, prolonged distress.
The last time we debated this issue, I mentioned the Food Standards Agency statistics on mis-stuns, which showed—and the Minister agreed—that an unrealistically low number of mis-stuns had been reported in the UK. In 2011, only six cattle were officially reported as having been mis-stunned. Following my questions, the Minister conceded that the statistics are not complete and may represent only a fraction of the actual number, and that the FSA will have to endeavour to improve its reporting methods.
I oppose stunning on the basis that mis-stuns cause animals more pain and distress and that it does not improve animal welfare. I am uneasy about the idea of ending non-stun slaughter coming forward so soon after the previous debate. I defend people’s right to eat meat and I defend my right not to eat meat; I also defend my constituents’ right to eat meat slaughtered in the way that they want it to be. Some people have said that these methods of slaughter are alien practices that are not part of British culture and not something we do in Britain. That starts to produce a divide between some groups and the so-called British public, and I am greatly concerned about that.
On the back of the Copenhagen and Paris attacks, many of my Jewish constituents worry that they are not wanted in this country. They, however, are more British than some of the people who have signed the e-petition; they, at the end of their synagogue services, always play “God Save the Queen” and sing along. We do not see that in other parts of society, more’s the pity. Similarly, when I visit my Muslim constituents at the mosque, they do not talk about the issues that some of the far right claim that they do; they are more concerned about parking outside the mosque on a Friday, so that they can get not only to the mosque but back to work afterwards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate all the members of the public who signed the petition and congratulate them on getting it past the 100,000 threshold to secure this debate. Members from all parties have expressed frustration at the fact that we debated this issue as recently as November, but let me be clear: I have always been of the view that debate never does harm to a democracy such as ours. This issue has been debated in Parliament since 1875 and if reports are to be believed that another petition has also exceeded 100,000 signatories, no doubt we will discuss it again, perhaps even before the general election. The reason for that is the importance of this issue to the public.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that the new procedure that enables members of the public to force debate on issues that are important to them is a good one. It is healthy for our democracy, so we should embrace and support it. I remember that he chaired the previous debate, which took place here back in November, when I dealt with many of these issues. He may recall that I set out some of the historical context. Given that some hon. Members here were not at that debate, it might be useful to summarise briefly some of that context again.
European and domestic regulations, which apply to the welfare of all animals slaughtered, require that all animals are stunned before slaughter. However, there is a long-standing derogation to allow slaughter without stunning in accordance with religious rites for the production of halal or kosher meat.
Our current national requirements on religious slaughter have a long history. The Government first set down powers to prevent cruelty in slaughterhouses through the Public Health Act 1875, and byelaws made under that legislation required animals to be “effectually stunned”. In 1904, the Admiralty set up a committee to ascertain the most humane and practical methods of slaughtering animals. Its report recommended, without exception, that all animals should be stunned before slaughter.
Following that report, the Local Government Board issued a circular proposing that the recommendations of the Admiralty’s committee should be implemented, but stunning should not be obligatory where slaughter was carried out by a Jew, licensed by the Chief Rabbi, provided that no unnecessary suffering was inflicted. It is interesting that a similar requirement for shechita slaughter—that it is carried out by a Jewish slaughterman, licensed by the Rabbinical Commission—still exists in our national legislation.
The first national legislative requirement for stunning was brought in under the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, as I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) alluded to. That also contained an exception from stunning for slaughter for Jews and Muslims. Over the years the national rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide protection to animals that are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. That brings me to the current situation.
Our existing national rules on religious slaughter, which are set out in schedule 12 to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter and Killing) Regulations 1995, provide greater protection than those contained in the European regulation. For example, there are requirements on how cattle can be restrained: we require bovines to be restrained only in pens that meet the requirements set down in the regulations. Such pens must be of suitable size and design, and include a suitable head restraint and a means of support that will take the animal’s weight during and following slaughter—a belly support. All pens must go through a rigorous procedure before approval is given.
Furthermore, unlike member states such as France and the Netherlands, we do not allow inversion of cattle for religious slaughter. That ban followed the 1985 report of the then Farm Animal Welfare Council, which recommended that inversion should be banned. The reason it gave was
“the terror and discomfort which ensue from the inversion of cattle in the rotary pen”.
The FAWC went on to recommend
“that the law be amended to permit the use of a pen which restrains the animal in a standing position provided that the design of the pen, which must be approved by Ministers, incorporates effective restraint and support for the animal”.
Other recommendations from that important 1985 FAWC report have been part of our national rules for some 25 years. They include, for instance, that no animal should be placed in a restraining pen until the slaughterman is in position and ready to carry out the incision. The regulations also require that a captive bolt gun must be kept close to the restraining pen in case of any emergency—for example, if the animal does not become unconscious due to the occlusion of the arteries in its neck.
Miss McIntosh
The Bowood episode clearly shows that the regulations might not be being followed to the letter, so who is responsible for ensuring that they are?
George Eustice
The food business operator—the operator of the abattoir—is legally required to ensure that those are followed, but I point out that an official veterinarian is present at every abattoir and it is their job to enforce them. I shall return to the issue of enforcement later.
In addition, the regulations require that before each animal is slaughtered, the knife must be checked to ensure it is sharp and undamaged, and that the cut must be a rapid and uninterrupted movement that cuts both carotid arteries and veins.
Other national rules concern the so-called standstill times for cattle, sheep and goats: following the neck cut, the animal cannot be moved, in the case of bovines, until it is unconscious and at least 30 seconds have passed, or, in the case of sheep and goats, until at least 20 seconds have passed. The standstill times aim to provide protection from avoidable pain, suffering and distress caused, for example, by unnecessary movement while the animal is still conscious.
Although there are no standstill rules as such for poultry, there are still a number of national rules that aim to minimise pain, suffering and distress. Following the neck cut, no further dressing procedure can be carried out on the bird until it is unconscious and at least two minutes have elapsed, in the case of turkeys and geese; for all other birds it is 90 seconds.
I set those regulations out in detail because it is important to recognise that there are special, strict requirements where religious slaughter is carried out. However, hon. Members should recognise another important point: none of the exemptions we have for religious slaughter exempt any operator from their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is the role of the official veterinarians in the abattoirs to decide when it may be necessary to go in, as required under the regulations, and use a bolt gun where something goes wrong. I shall return to that point later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering pointed out, there are also differing requirements right across Europe, as provided for in the European regulations. In Germany, for example, abattoirs have to prove the religious needs and the number of animals to be slaughtered to satisfy the needs of the religious community concerned before being granted a licence. My hon. Friend asked whether we could look at that further, as did the shadow Minister. It is an interesting area and following this debate, given the apparent support from hon. Members, I would be willing to look at it. However, the existing standstill times are already a powerful disincentive for the mainstreaming of religious slaughter, because they make the process much slower. It is therefore not really in the interests of any abattoir to conduct religious slaughter in accordance with the regulations unless it is for a specific need.
Mr David Jones
Why are such a high proportion of sheep and goats being killed by the non-stun method? The figure is 15%, as we have heard, whereas the Jewish and Muslim population of this country accounts for only some 5% of the total population.
George Eustice
I am not sure. I will have to check those particular figures. We know, for instance, that around 73% of all halal meat slaughtered is already stunned before it is slaughtered, and as many hon. Members pointed out, the amount of kosher meat on the market is a very small proportion. However, this is an interesting area, and it is something that I have looked at. I do not think that it gets away from the broader dilemma of the debate, but nevertheless, it is worthy of further consideration.
In the Netherlands, all animals must be stunned if they have not lost consciousness within 40 seconds of the cut. In France, there must be a post-cut stun if cattle are still conscious after 90 seconds. Other countries—notably Finland, Austria, Estonia and Slovakia—go further in requiring immediate post-cut stunning, whereas Denmark requires post-cut stunning in bovines only.
Further afield, as several hon. Members have pointed out, under Australian law, stunning at slaughter is required, but there is an option for a state or meat inspection authority to provide an exemption and approve an abattoir for ritual slaughter without prior stunning for the domestic market, but post-cut stunning is still a requirement for those animals.
As we have plenty of time, I want to move on to other points that hon. Members have raised. Having discussed this issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was one of my predecessors in this role, I know that this is something he has looked at. I can tell him that I have looked at it in equal detail since and that finding a consensus among the various parties concerned is no easier than it ever was. However, I want to pick up on a few issues that he highlighted.
My right hon. Friend described a situation in an abattoir in which several sheep were in a V restrainer conveyor simultaneously. That would be a breach of the existing regulations. There should never be more than one sheep in a sheep restrainer for the purposes of religious slaughter, because, as I have pointed out, the requirement is very clear that they cannot go into the slaughter pen—in this case, the V restrainer—until they are ready to be slaughtered. That is very important, because sheep have a natural tendency to want to flock, and putting them in a restrainer where they are held firm, while there are the standstill times and other sheep taking 15 or 20 seconds ahead of them, is not right. That is a breach of the existing regulations.
My right hon. Friend raised valid points on the time to unconsciousness. I remember well him describing to me seeing cattle take up to six minutes to lose consciousness. I hear various ranges for the time to loss of consciousness. There is a consensus that chickens are normally unconscious within 15 to 20 seconds. Likewise, I am told that 10 to 15 seconds is typical in the case of sheep, as he pointed out, and sometimes it is a little longer. However, when it comes to cattle, it is clear that there can be quite wide variances. He says that he witnessed cattle taking between four and six minutes to lose consciousness. I have discussed the matter with our veterinary advisers, some of whom have worked as OVs in abattoirs, and they tell me that it is more typical that, after around 40 seconds, the animal will collapse and go off its legs, and be supported by the restraining pen, and that it will typically then lose consciousness after 1 minute 20 seconds. That is still quite a lot of time, but it is why France has a cut-off point of 1 minute 30 seconds, after which a post-cut stun is required. At the other extreme, I have met former staff of the FSA who have told me that they have seen shechita abattoirs do this particularly effectively, with the animal collapsing within 10 seconds.
It is also clear that in many of these abattoirs, both halal and shechita—the best ones—where anything goes wrong, they are in quickly with the bolt gun to put the animal out of any pain. That is why I want again to talk about the Animal Welfare Act 2006, under which there is a requirement on an abattoir operator not to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal. Where something goes wrong—where, for example, it takes up to five or six minutes for the animal to lose consciousness—there is a clear rationale for an official veterinarian to intervene earlier to say that something had gone wrong and that, as required under the regulations, the animal should be dispatched with a bolt gun.
Further to the fact that I have never been able to get a clear answer on exactly how long it takes for bovines in particular to lose consciousness, some months ago I asked our deputy chief veterinary officer to conduct a piece of work with the FSA to look at the matter afresh and see whether we can, without changing any laws, ensure that we have consistent application of the existing laws and consistent understanding of when it is appropriate for an OV to require that post-cut shot to be taken.
Let me move on to other points. Various hon. Members questioned the science of whether it is better for the welfare of the animals for them to be stunned prior to slaughter. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made the good point, which I will concede, that at the time when halal and kosher were designed, they were very much about respect for the animal and sparing it any unnecessary pain. The genesis of both halal and kosher was about animal welfare, albeit that was some time ago.
I also completely accept that there can be good and bad abattoirs. It may be that conventional abattoirs would also mistreat the animals. I completely recognise the point that there are big differences. The only thing that I would say—this is where there is strong cross-party consensus—is that we have to look at the scientific evidence that we have, and the argument that says that the cut itself is equivalent to a stun is not borne out by the scientific evidence. As the shadow Minister pointed out, we had in 2003 the Farm Animal Welfare Committee report, which concluded that non-stun slaughter could cause distress and suffering. In 2004, we had the European Food Safety Authority report, which also concluded that it was preferable to have stunning of all animals. In 2009, the EU DIALREL report reached the same conclusion. It looked at neurological surveys of animals that were being slaughtered in order to establish scientifically whether they were experiencing pain. More recently, work in New Zealand has confirmed the same. It is therefore important that we recognise the basis on which the exemption exists. It is not because we think that somehow religious slaughter, be it halal or shechita, is a more humane way to slaughter animals than what mainstream abattoirs do today. It is because we respect the religious rights of those communities and we have accommodated them in the long-standing derogations that we have in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) raised the issue of CCTV, on which we have recently had a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. It stops short of saying that there should be compulsory use of CCTV in slaughterhouses. We should recognise that the place in her constituency about which concerns were raised did have CCTV, so it is no panacea on its own. However, the FAWC report does conclude that many advantages come with CCTV. It can also help business managers to manage their operation. For instance, it can reveal lameness in sheep in the lairage pens that would not otherwise be detected. If used correctly, CCTV can be a very useful tool to help business managers to ensure that they are compliant with the regulation and to manage their business operations.
My hon. Friend also mentioned enforcement. I will come to that at the end. Labelling was the other issue that a number of hon. Members raised, and I want to deal with that. There is a European Commission working group. The shadow Minister asked about the timing of the report. It is one of those EU reports that has been delayed and delayed. We initially expected it last summer, then we expected it in the new year, and the latest update that I have had is that it is still some months away, which I think reflects the fact that this is a difficult issue to get right.
Let me give some general pointers. First, there is a very clear legal definition, both in our own law and in European law, of what stunned means for the purposes of abattoirs. It is rendering an animal insensitive to pain instantly or almost instantly, so I think that we can be clear that we could have “Stunned” or “Unstunned” as a form of labelling. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire made a very good point about the inability to enforce that sometimes. It would not be easy and it would not necessarily protect all those people who were buying their food from catering establishments, either. There are difficulties in labelling things just as “Halal” or “Kosher”. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, not all parts of the carcase are deemed kosher, even though the animal may have been slaughtered by kosher methods, and there is no single, uniform interpretation of what halal means. Different imams have different interpretations of the rules. We therefore await the report from the European Commission. I have heard it said that there could be labelling that just said “Unstunned” if the animal had not been stunned, but again this, like other issues, is not easy.
Ms Abbott
I am always gripped by discussions about the European Commission, but will the Minister comment on the point that concerns my constituents, which is that for some of the people involved in the push against halal and shechita, animal welfare is merely a flag of convenience? That is what concerns my constituents. They are very happy to make slaughter safer and more humane, but they are worried about the motivation of some of the people who are pushing this issue and who keep coming back to it.
George Eustice
I know that the hon. Lady made that point previously. I do not think that there has been anything in the debate today to suggest that that is the case among hon. Members taking part in it, and indeed the motion itself makes it absolutely clear that it is looking just at the animal welfare issue, so I am not sure that we should go down that route.
In conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) pointed out, the Government have no plans at all to ban religious slaughter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that there is no intention to ban religious slaughter. However, everyone agrees that we need good enforcement of our existing legislation.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Does the Minister see any scope for progress on post-cut stunning, which would be a real step forward? Several hon. Members raised that.
George Eustice
Yes, and I am going to come to that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned enforcement and I can confirm that today, following a number of incidents, the FSA has begun a series of unannounced inspections of GB slaughterhouses, and by the end of March all approved slaughterhouses will have been subject to an unannounced inspection.
On the shadow Minister’s point, in the longer term, we may be able to learn lessons from other countries. Some other countries have managed to accommodate or reconcile the beliefs of Jewish and Muslim communities while having a slightly different approach from us. A number of countries, including Holland and France, do have a requirement for a post-cut stun in a particular time scale. It is not easy to get consensus among the religious communities for that, but we should also recognise, as I said at the beginning, that in many respects our national rules are better than those elsewhere in Europe, especially on the issue of inversion, which is, according to all advice, quite serious.
We have had a very good, informative debate, covering a wide range of issues. It has been a pleasure to be here to debate this issue again.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 January in Brussels. Rebecca Evans AM and Richard Lochhead MSP were also present.
Fisheries
Multiannual plan for fisheries in the Baltic sea
Commissioner Vella presented the proposal for a multiannual plan (MAP) for fisheries in the Baltic sea. I welcomed the proposal as it would be an important tool for achieving the aims of the reformed common fisheries policy but stressed the need for it to reinforce regionalisation. I argued that the inclusion of maximum sustainable yield ranges in the MAP did not infringe on the Council’s competence to set total allowable catches. France, Italy, Belgium and Spain however raised concerns that the proposal would impinge on the Council’s competence. France also raised issues with the current formulation of the proposed delegated acts.
AOB: The “Omnibus Regulation” implementing the landing obligation
The presidency affirmed that they wanted to reach an early deal with the European Parliament (EP) on the “Omnibus Regulation” removing legislative impediments to the implementation of the landing obligation. They asked member states if they could support a deal which prevented any weakening of the regulation, but included, at the request of the EP, a new obligation on member states to submit annual reports on the implementation of the landing obligation. I, along with a number of other member states, supported an early deal, subject to minimising the potential administrative burden of the new proposed reporting obligations. I also stressed, with support from Spain, Belgium, Ireland and Malta, that we did not want to see responsibility for dealing with undersized fish being placed on to the member states as a part of a final deal.
Agriculture
Pig meat trade with Russia
The presidency accepted Poland’s request for a discussion on the recent reports that some member states had been approached by Russia to reopen bilateral trade on pig meat. Poland along with the Baltic member states argued that the Russian ban on EU agriculture products was imposed simultaneously on all member states and therefore should be lifted in the same manner. I supported Poland and the Baltics and stressed that the EU should be united in its approach to Russia. Commissioner Andriukaitis argued that bilateral trade deals with Russia were unacceptable and that the Commission would not tolerate discrimination between member states.
Market developments, including the effects of the Russian import ban
There was a discussion on the situation in various market sectors. On dairy, Commissioner Hogan announced that private storage aid (PSA) for butter and skimmed milk powder would remain open until September 2015 but rejected calls for PSA for cheese. He agreed to consider the issue of staggered payment of milk super levy at the March Council, when more complete production figures for 2014-15 would be available. He also confirmed that he was considering what EU action could be taken to tackle exploitation in the supply chain. On fruit and vegetables, Commissioner Hogan maintained that the current measures were sufficient. On pig meat, however, he accepted they might have to consider new measures. In response to Italy’s concerns about falling EU sugar prices, Commissioner Hogan argued that the EU had benefited from historically high EU prices and underlined that producers had had many years to prepare for the end of quotas.
[HCWS284]
Contaminated Land (Householder Responsibility)
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing the debate. I assure him that representing as I do a seat with towns built on the sites of 18th and 19th-century tin mining, I am well aware that contaminated land is still an issue in many parts of the country and that it has in no way gone away. The idea that it has is not the driver behind some of the changes we have made.
Contaminated land is a complex area and can cause hardship and anxiety for people, particularly where their homes are involved. The case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, where he suggested the cost could be £270,000, very much demonstrates that point. An estimated 90% of the remediation of contaminated sites is market-driven and occurs under the planning regime, but there will continue to be sites that are not suitable for further development, but require remediation.
I was interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s involvement in the passage of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As he knows, the contaminated land regime, as set out in part 2A of that Act, provides a risk-based approach to the identification and remediation of land where contamination poses an unacceptable risk to human health, property or the environment. Responsibility for identifying that contaminated land rests with the local authority, as set out under part 2A. Changes made to the part 2A statutory guidance in April 2012 have resulted in a more risk-based approach to identifying and remediating contaminated land, meaning that more resource can be directed to those sites most in need. From our discussions with local authorities, we know that the new statutory guidance is proving helpful to them and has helped to simplify a complex area.
Part 2A, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is based on the principle of polluter pays. Therefore, liability will always be apportioned in the first instance to the company or person that caused the pollution or knowingly permitted it to be caused. However, it is not always possible to identify the polluter. In some cases, the pollution was caused long ago, and the company responsible may since have folded. When that happens, the costs of remediation can fall to the site owner or the occupier of the land. That might be the local authority itself, but it can also be individual private householders. Crucially, however, local authorities are required to take into account the hardship that may be caused if all costs, or partial costs, are to be apportioned. When local authorities are reaching decisions over cost apportionment, hardship must be considered on a case-by-case basis, with regard given to the principles set out in the statutory guidance.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency matter relating to the Whatley gasworks in Somerset, I understand that in the case of the home owner on that site, no liable polluter could be identified. Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was unable to offer further funding this year, as the contingency fund was allocated to higher-priority sites, I can confirm that in previous years, capital grants totalling almost £90,000 have been issued for the same site to cover the costs of investigation. The hon. Gentleman was unclear about this, but my understanding is that, in the end, the local council agreed to bear the costs of remediation because it determined that hardship would be caused to the householders who owned the affected property had they been made to pay. I know that he questions whether that is the case, and I am more than willing to clarify that point after the debate, but my understanding is that the costs will be borne in this instance.
A related point about part 2A is that it is clear that where a class B person owns and occupies a dwelling on contaminated land, the council should consider waiving or reducing the costs of recovery if the person did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the land was contaminated when they brought it. My understanding is that the people in the case raised by the hon. Gentleman did have a survey carried out when they purchased the property many years ago, which is also a mitigating circumstance.
Mr Heath
The local authority has been as helpful as possible in this case and did identify both of those factors as arguments for waiving the fees. Nevertheless, it expressed concern that a number of other properties around the district council area will end up in similar circumstances. That would mean a substantial capital sum mounting up very quickly, which would be difficult for a small district council to support.
George Eustice
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope to reassure him in a moment when I discuss some of the other things that we are doing to move from looking only at the hazard of contaminated land to a more risk-based approach. From 2012 onwards, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that councils do not unnecessarily identify sites that may well have some contamination but are not a priority. I am pleased that the case he has raised appears to have been resolved satisfactorily; however, he has put his finger on an important point, because other sites might be affected.
As I said at the start of my speech, it is important to recognise that an estimated 90% of the cleaning up of contaminated land in England and Wales is carried out through the planning system under the national planning policy framework. The Government encourage the focus on a market-based approach to dealing with contaminated land. One of the financial incentives provided by Government to encourage the re-development of contaminated land is land remediation relief, which allows companies to claim back corporation tax on 150% of the costs of dealing with contaminated land and is intended to influence developers’ decisions positively by increasing the profitability of redevelopment projects. We should also note that the existing environmental permitting regime for the current activities with the greatest potential to cause contamination is designed to ensure that no new part 2A contaminated sites are created.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the capital grant scheme is being phased out. I know that local authorities were disappointed when DEFRA announced in December 2013 that the contaminated land capital grants scheme would be closed. The phasing out of the grants scheme is regrettable, but it reflected a necessary shift to a more sustainable approach in the face of pressures on the public finances, of which the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, having been a DEFRA Minister himself. The cornerstone of our new approach was the revised guidance that we issued in 2012 that has saved local authorities and businesses money by giving much more clarity over how to decide whether affected sites need to be remediated.
In March 2014, we published DEFRA-funded research to develop new screening levels that will help public authorities and developers to screen out low-risk land from the need for further investigation and so prevent unnecessary remediation works. The crucial thing is to ensure that there is no obligation on local authorities to search for sites that might not be of particularly high risk and should not be a priority, thereby creating a potential liability for householders. By adopting a more risk-based, less hazard-based approach to these issues, we have helped to address some concerns.
The screening values that we published sit alongside DEFRA research that was published in 2012 on the normal background concentrations of contaminants. That forms part of a toolkit for use by the contaminated land sector that will help to ensure that pragmatic, evidence-based decisions can be taken, thereby reducing costs while ensuring a high level of protection to human health and the environment. DEFRA continues to support the national experts panel on contaminated land, the remit of which is to advise local authorities on difficult decisions under part 2A at more complex contaminated sites. The panel is available as a free resource for local authorities to access, and is intended to help where it is unclear whether a site should be determined as contaminated under part 2A. Case studies on the output of the panel’s work will be published so that all local authorities can benefit from the lessons learned.
In conclusion, we remain committed to ensuring that the appropriate policy tools are available to support local authorities in carrying out their duties under part 2A. Local authorities that require help and advice about how best to manage affected sites should obtain advice from industry experts where necessary. Authorities should also try to work with the owner of the land to see what benefits could be gained via the land remediation relief scheme. Although there will always be difficult cases that require more detailed consideration, the changes that we have introduced to the contaminated land management regime since 2012 have stimulated growth, enabled previously abandoned sites to be developed and returned to productive use, and delivered significant benefits for the economy, while maintaining a high degree of protection for human health and the environment.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on bringing this debate before the House. I hope I have been able to allay some of his concerns, both on the individual case that he raised, which I understand has now been resolved, and more widely.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way at this point. In the course of the debate, I have been advised that the matter has not yet been resolved. It might be a matter of loan or of grant, but the household concerned is still not absolutely clear about where the funding will come from.
George Eustice
In which case that is a disappointment, because I thought that we had found a solution. After the debate, I will discuss the case with my noble Friend Lord de Mauley, with whom I know the hon. Gentleman has previously corresponded. As I said, the local authority could show forbearance on a couple of grounds and waive the costs: first, on the grounds of hardship, for which there would seem to be a good case, given the high costs; and secondly, on the grounds that there was no reason why the householders should have known or had reason to know about the contamination, given that they had a survey conducted when they purchased the property. We will look further at the case and see whether a resolution can be found.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I hope that, owing to the efforts of the hon. Gentleman and the good intentions of the Minister, this matter can be cleaned up for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as soon as possible. I thank both participants for their contributions.
Dairy Industry
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this important debate. Given the sheer number of Members who have wanted to speak today, it is clear that he has touched a nerve and alighted on a serious problem, which is the current state of affairs in the dairy industry. I am well aware that many dairy farmers are suffering at the moment. Yesterday, I was in Cumbria and I met a group of dairy farmers there. Earlier this year, the issue dominated discussions at our regular farm resilience group, as it did at our meeting of the dairy supply chain forum last November, and we have another meeting next week with the Secretary of State to look further at the issues facing dairy farmers and to consider how we can help them.
It is fair to say that the dairy industry has had a rollercoaster ride in the last couple of years. In 2012, we were exactly where we are now, with prices on the floor; in fact, in many ways the situation then was worse, because feed prices were very high and dairy farmers were losing a lot of money. Then, last year—2013-14—we saw a very good year for dairy farmers. Prices were much higher, at around 30p to 35p per litre. feed costs came down, and the farm business survey showed that they had a good year last year. Since then, there has been a big increase in production in New Zealand, with production there up around 18% over the last year. Demand in China dropped off quite suddenly, as the Chinese had built up stockpiles of skimmed milk powder and came back out of the market. Production in Europe is up by 8% to 10%, and the Russian trade ban has aggravated things. As a result of all that, on the international auctions we have seen a very sharp decline in prices, which brings us to our current low level.
As a number of hon. Members have already alluded to, it is worth noting that there are differences between different farm businesses; different farmers face a wide range of costs. Yesterday, I visited a farmer who has Jersey cattle on an extensive grass-based system, and his costs of production were only around 22p per litre. It is not always about “inefficient” and “efficient” producers. Sometimes, efficient producers choose to run quite intensive systems, which means they have higher labour, feed and capital costs, and have to make more investment. Quite often, those producers find that they have higher production costs—for some of them, it costs 28p to 30p per litre—and if they are receiving low prices they are losing money.
The other element to bear in mind is that there is a big spread in the prices that farmers receive. At the top end, there are those farmers who are responsible for around 30% of UK liquid milk production and they are on cost-of-production contracts to the major supermarkets. Many of them are still receiving around 30p per litre for their milk. At the other end, there are those farmers who supply processors and consequently they are much more exposed to the international commodity markets, such as those supplying First Milk, which takes most of the milk production in Scotland, the north, the borders and Wales. At the moment, First Milk is able to pay farmers only around 20p per litre, so there is a big spread, both in terms of production costs and the prices farmers are paid.
I will point out, first of all, the things that we are doing in the short term. Immediately, we have to address farmers’ cash-flow challenges. Regarding those farmers who have not yet received their single farm payment—most farmers have received it, but some have not—we have told the Rural Payments Agency to absolutely prioritise dairy farmers, and particularly those supplying First Milk.
I had a meeting with the banks two weeks ago to encourage them to show forbearance to their business customers who are dairy farmers suffering difficulty at the moment, and I will continue to monitor the process as far as the banks are concerned.
We have urged Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be sympathetic in its dealings with dairy farmers. Those dairy farmers who had a good year last year potentially face quite a large tax bill, which is due to be paid in June this year, and we need to show some forbearance to those farmers who will have just weathered a very difficult winter.
Finally DairyCo, which is part of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, has set up a special unit to give financial advice to farmers to help them through these difficult times. Also, we will shortly open a new round of rural development programme schemes, which will have dedicated measures to try to help farmers to improve their productivity and reduce their costs.
In the medium term, there are other issues that we are looking to explore. First, there is exports, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. I completely agree that if we want to have a resilient industry for the long term, we have got to open new export markets. We have seen good progress in this area. In the past year, there has been 47% growth in exports to non-EU markets of our dairy products. In fact, our total dairy exports are now at their highest level ever, at £1.3 billion. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State was in China where she had discussions with the Chinese about how we can open up these opportunities, and we will shortly receive a delegation from Brazil to consider the opportunities for dairy exports to that country.
Another key area that I have been working on with the National Farmers Union in particular is around market measures to deal with volatility. In the US, when quotas were removed, quite a sophisticated futures market was developed to help to manage volatility. Typically, US dairy farmers fix around 40% of their production at a fixed price, hedged in the futures market, and leave only 60% of their production to the vagaries of the market. That takes some of the extreme peaks and troughs in the market out of their income profile. We can learn lessons from that system and we are working on this issue with the NFU. There are embryonic markets in skimmed milk powder and butter, for instance, which are run by the London international financial futures and options exchange, and Eurex, and we would like to see whether we can develop that futures model further.
We are keen to promote country-of-origin labelling. The UK was at the forefront of arguing for improved country-of-origin labelling on beef, lamb, pigs and poultry, and we should do the same on dairy products, so that we do not have Irish milk being imported to the UK and processed into cheese, before it is fobbed off as a product of the UK.
Procurement was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Last year, we launched the Bonfield report, which was a new approach to procurement. It sets out a balanced scorecard. The uptake from schools and hospitals has been good in that respect, and we are keen to encourage further uptake.
George Eustice
I cannot give way, as I want to cover as many points as possible. I agree with the point made about procurement, and we are making progress in that area.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I can confirm that a week ago the order that establishes the ability to levy fines was laid. It is subject to an affirmative resolution process, so it will now go through Committees in both Houses, but that will happen during this Parliament.
A number of hon. Members talked about the extension of the groceries code. We are considering that. Last year, I considered whether we should place the dairy supply chain code on a statutory basis, but because there is existing EU legislation in this area—a Common Market organisation regulation that establishes the grounds of such codes—we would end up with a weaker code if we put it on a statutory footing, because we would not be able to stipulate that farmers could walk away at three months’ notice. Therefore, while we had a contingency plan to put the dairy supply chain code on a statutory footing if it collapsed, we would have ended up, as I say, with a code that was weaker, so there are limitations to doing that.
When it comes to the powers of the GCA, we have to realise that they are not reliant on complaints. They already have full powers to investigate
“if there are reasonable grounds to suspect”
that the code has been broken. So, those measures are already in place. In fact, when I met Christine Tacon recently to discuss this matter, she said that one of the biggest things she is trying to encourage is better training of processors and those dealing with supermarkets to ensure that they use the code effectively and say to supermarkets, “You’ll understand that I can’t accept what you are asking me to accept, because it would be in breach of the code,” and to do so in a way that ensures everybody abides by the code. That is how we can help those further down the supply chain, because one of the issues is that it might sometimes be easier for processors to take the hit from the supermarket and pass it on to farmers. We need to ensure that they hold their retail customers to the code.
A number of hon. Members mentioned intervention prices. I have to say that Commissioner Hogan thought that that would be the wrong way to go when it was discussed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council last week. One of the difficulties we would have is that other farmers in the UK would have to pick up the cost of such action through crisis measures, and we would tend to find that other European countries would benefit most, because although we have low prices here, other European countries have even lower prices. Also, the history of such schemes tends to be that the UK pays while others benefit, so we have to be concerned about that. However, we have the milk market observatory at EU level, and other crisis measures, particularly to mitigate the effects of the Russian ban, have been considered.
Hon. Members mentioned the EU school milk scheme. I will say, briefly, that we access that scheme, although it is not a very generous scheme; we have to top it up a lot, but we do use it. When it comes to the number of dairy farmers, there has been consolidation over many years, but production in the UK is now at a 10-year high. So, although we have fewer dairy farmers, total dairy production in the UK is still higher than it has been for a decade.
I will finish on a brighter note, by saying that the long-term prospects for this industry are good. We are seeing a 2.5% rise in demand per year, and the UK is well placed to take new opportunities in markets. We should also note that most analysts are now predicting a recovery of milk prices—farm-gate milk prices—later this year. The last three Fonterra global dairy trade auctions have shown a recovery in skimmed milk powder prices on the global market; in fact, they are up 15% since the beginning of the year. As I said, it will take time for that to feed through to farm-gate prices, but most analysts now expect that we will see a recovery in farm-gate milk prices from the summer onwards and that could be quite a strong recovery, if the early indications on the international auction in recent days are anything to go by.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for their forbearance this morning. It has been difficult, but the House has conducted itself impeccably.
CCTV in Slaughterhouses
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this timely debate, given that we have had the recent publication of the Food Standards Agency’s latest survey on animal welfare in slaughterhouses. I am also aware of Animal Aid’s campaign for compulsory CCTV and the revelations in the media today about apparent incidents at the Bowood abattoir in Yorkshire. In addition, I can tell the House that today we have published a report on CCTV in slaughterhouses by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which is an expert advisory committee to the Government. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library. The committee has been considering the issue for much of the past year and I am grateful to it for its input.
Animal welfare is a matter on which DEFRA receives a huge amount of correspondence. It really matters to the British public and to the Government. From my personal perspective, although I am not a vegetarian, I was a farmer for nine years and it matters to me. When one rears cattle—when one looks after cattle, pigs and other animals—one wants to know that when they are sent off to market—to their end—they will be spared any unnecessary stress or suffering, and that they will be treated with respect. That matters to all good farmers, to the public and to good slaughtermen, too. I will return to the issue of CCTV and the findings of the FAWC report, but first I will deal with the Bowood incident, reported in the media today following the release of secret footage by Animal Aid.
I was first made aware of the Animal Aid video on 6 January and I asked immediately to see some of the footage that Animal Aid had made available to the FSA. Like many others who will have seen the footage, I found the films distressing and gave my full support to the immediate enforcement action that was being taken.
The FSA acted swiftly to suspend the licences of the four slaughtermen involved. It also launched an immediate investigation into the incidents, and that investigation is ongoing. One of the suspended members of staff was subsequently sacked by Bowood, while the remaining three are banned from handling live animals until the investigations have concluded. In addition, I can confirm that the FSA has required the immediate introduction to Bowood of an additional inspector to monitor operations there, and the cost of that additional inspector will be chargeable to the business. The additional officer will have full viewing access to all areas of the plant. Also, I recently asked our deputy chief veterinary officer to commence a piece of work with the FSA to review the way existing regulations are implemented and enforced, with a view to ensuring consistent understanding of what guidelines should be followed to ensure that slaughterhouses abide by the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The report by the FAWC concludes that there are many benefits to CCTV in slaughterhouses, but also sounds a note of caution, stating that CCTV is no panacea, and while it can be a useful tool to complement existing enforcement and management, it cannot replace other management procedures and inspection regimes. It is tempting to conclude that the footage released by Animal Aid proves a point: that perhaps things like this would not happen if CCTV were in place. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, the reality is that the Bowood abattoir where Animal Aid secretly recorded its footage already has CCTV. The presence of CCTV did not prevent those apparent incidents, and the Bowood case is not the first example of apparent welfare breaches, including deliberate abuses, found in slaughterhouses where CCTV is present. My conclusion is that CCTV can only ever be part of the answer to improving animal welfare and preventing abuses. It needs to be backed up with other monitoring methods.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I declare an interest as a livestock farmer, as well as my utter disgust on seeing the film of the Yorkshire slaughterhouse. I am a little concerned that many small slaughterhouses are already closing down, mainly because of the costs of regulation and supervision. Does the Minister agree that the introduction of CCTV should be proportionate, so that small slaughterhouses that have a good record on hygiene and animal welfare can be exempted, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) suggested?
George Eustice
I was going to discuss some of the options later. Earlier, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about costs. The FAWC has said that the costs can range from £3,000 to £10,000; that is the committee’s view, but other estimates are higher, at £25,000. Clearly, it depends on the size of the abattoir and the number of areas covered by CCTV, but we do not think the cost of the equipment is prohibitive. It is relatively modest but it is none the less a real cost and we must be careful not to harm smaller abattoirs, particularly those that have good track records on animal welfare.
As I said, the FAWC report states that there are benefits to CCTV. The committee concludes that it has a useful role in recording incidents, helping enforcers by enabling them to look at the footage to check what actually happened. It can also be used for evidence where welfare abuses are suspected. But the benefits of CCTV go wider than its role as a possible deterrent. For instance, it could allow observation of activities in small or confined spaces where it would otherwise be difficult for the official veterinarian to observe. The report also concludes that CCTV can provide more accurate ante-mortem inspection in the lairage areas. For example, it is apparent that sheep may mask lameness when a stockman or a vet is present but not under remote observation.
CCTV can also be a valuable training tool for operatives to encourage sensitive and sympathetic behaviour towards animals and to spot any bad practices which could result in incidents or near misses. The report concludes that it is necessary to get the balance right between CCTV being present as a deterrent and a “Big Brother is watching you” device, and using it in a positive way to help train operatives.
I want to say a little about the current situation and the uptake of CCTV. The FSA’s survey of compliance with animal welfare regulations in slaughterhouses in 2013, which was published last week, looked at the extent to which CCTV was already present on a voluntary basis in both red meat and white meat slaughterhouses. It is encouraging to note that the 2013 survey recorded that there has been an increase since 2011 in the use of CCTV, and that 43% of red meat and 55% of white meat slaughterhouses now have CCTV installed. By comparison, in 2010 just 7% had CCTV in the stunning and slaughter area and 8% had CCTV in other areas, so progress has been made.
Of course, these figures illustrate only part of the picture, as even those slaughterhouses that have CCTV installed do not necessarily have it in all areas. For example, red meat slaughterhouses tend to have slightly more CCTV in the lairage and unloading areas than in the stunning or bleeding areas. None the less, the trend towards increased installation and use of CCTV in slaughterhouses is welcome. Once we take into account the fact that the larger abattoirs tend to have CCTV and look at the throughput of those slaughterhouses, the results are even more positive. The proportion of animals slaughtered in premises using CCTV is approximately 83% of sheep, 90% of cattle, 92% of pigs and 98% of poultry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley pointed out, the fact that 10 of the major supermarkets demand CCTV in slaughterhouses that supply them has, no doubt, been a factor, but I hope hon. Members agree that it is encouraging that much of the meat and poultry industry has reacted positively for calls over recent years for CCTV introduction.
On enforcement, business operators are primarily responsible for the animals in their care at slaughterhouses, whereas the FSA’s official veterinarians are responsible for monitoring the welfare of animals at slaughterhouses. The report by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee points out that since the responsibility ultimately rests with business operators, they have an interest in ensuring that they do their job effectively. CCTV can assist them in doing that. I agree with my hon. Friend on some of the advantages of CCTV and that it can be a powerful tool. I welcome the increased uptake in CCTV, although I recognise its limitations.
I shall touch briefly on the point about mis-stunning, which my hon. Friend raised. On the statistics concerning mis-stuns, the Government accepted last year that these were unlikely to cover 100% of incidents. Official veterinarians do not monitor all killing operations, and for poultry OVs can only ever record the number of incidents, rather than the number of animals affected. It is important to clarify what we understand by a mis-stun. Previously, only major and critical breaches where the mis-stun caused pain, suffering or distress were recorded, along with the corrective action taken.
Following questions asked in the House, I asked the FSA to review the way it monitors and reports mis-stuns, and it has now issued new instructions to official veterinarians which requires them to record minor breaches, such as where there may be a superficial concussion owing to an inaccurate position and a second stun is applied immediately afterwards. I hope that in future my hon. Friend’s concerns about the accuracy of data will be addressed.
In conclusion, the key question that the debate raises is whether making it mandatory for slaughterhouses to have CCTV installed will improve animal welfare. The last time the Government looked at the issue, which was in 2012, we concluded that mandatory CCTV was not the right way to go. However, I have always been clear that we keep the issue under review and that I have an open mind. I have just received the report from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which examines the arguments and evidence for the compulsory installation of CCTV in slaughterhouses. I want to consider its findings fully before reaching a final conclusion. As I have said, I will place a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses so that hon. Members can do the same. We have also uploaded the report to the gov.uk website.
We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend, who has pursued the issue tirelessly since being elected, raised some important points. I hope that I have been able to address some of his concerns today.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
4. What assessment she has made of the benefits and costs of extending the Cheshire badger vaccination programme to include the borough of Stockport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The deadline for applications for the badger edge vaccination scheme, which supports privately-led vaccination in the edge areas of England, which includes much of Cheshire, is 27 February. Decisions will be based on published criteria such as the size of the area, the location, value for money and operational readiness.
Sir Andrew Stunell
Sadly, I must report an outbreak of bovine TB in Stockport in my constituency that is just north of the Cheshire area for which bids can be accepted. May I press the Minister to extend the area from which valid bids will be accepted, to take account of the northern spread of this pernicious disease?
George Eustice
We are aware that there is a particular problem in Cheshire, and that is why we have introduced six-monthly surveillance testing. The boundaries of the so-called edge area are reviewed regularly on epidemiological grounds. The TB advisory group last considered this issue at the end of last year and decided that there was not a case for increasing testing at that stage. The matter will be considered again later this year.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Government keep on saying that there is no alternative to badger culling, yet the trials in Wales based on stringent cattle measures combined with vaccination show that there is a viable alternative to the Government’s mass slaughter of badgers. However, Ministers are obviously allergic to science-based policy and deaf to alternative approaches. Will there be an announcement on the further roll-out of the mass culling of badgers before the Dissolution of Parliament? The country needs to know.
George Eustice
I think the hon. Lady is reading too much into what has happened in Wales. The vaccinated area is a little more than 1.5% of the total area. There has been a reduction in the incidence of TB, as there has been in the UK, predominantly through the introduction of cattle movement controls. We have always been very clear that there is no example anywhere in the world of a country that has tackled TB without also dealing with the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. We will stick to our 25-year strategy.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that there is hearsay about the number of herd breakdowns within the pilot cull areas. When are we going to have some facts and figures?
George Eustice
It is too early to give those figures. My hon. Friend is right, though, that anecdotally there are examples of farms that have gone clear since the badger cull commenced. The farm of James Griffiths, which I visited last year, had been under restriction for 12 years, and I understand that he went clear earlier this year. However, these are currently anecdotal reports and it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
5. What discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the environmental case for supporting the development of onshore and offshore wind power.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
7. What estimate she has made of the number of people who used emergency food aid in the last 12 months; and what steps the Government are taking to address food poverty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The provision of food aid ranges from small, local provision to regional and national schemes. Some keep records, some do not, but we do not want to create new regulations or reporting burdens for volunteers and charity groups providing food aid. The best way to address poverty is to help people off benefits and into work, and we have created 1.7 million jobs since 2010. Schemes such as free school meals will also help. Last week, the Secretary of State met retailers to encourage them to do more to redistribute surplus food to local charities.
Chi Onwurah
According to the Trussell Trust, the food bank in the west end of Newcastle is the busiest in the country, feeding thousands every month. I hope that the Minister is not going to pretend that these people are just attracted to free food or that they do not know how to cook, because I have seen the tears in the eyes of my constituents at the shame they feel when forced to go to this food bank by this Government’s cruel and unfair policies. So what is he going to do about it?
George Eustice
We have reduced taxes for 25 million people, and we have taken 3 million of the lowest earners out of tax altogether. In the past year, food prices have fallen by 1.7%, which is the first time that food prices have fallen since 2002.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Instead of harping on about what the Government might or might not be doing—and we are doing much to get people out of food poverty—I urge colleagues to do as I have done and visit their local food bank. I know that many colleagues have already done so. They should also emphasise to their constituents that what food banks require is not fresh food, but pasta, sugar and other goods that can be stored for some time.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I visited the food bank in Camborne in my constituency just before Christmas to support the work that it does. It is better for food banks to have predominantly non-perishable goods to support the great work that they do.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
There is no shortage of food in this country, yet more than 1 million people are going hungry and relying on emergency food aid. There is no shortage of compassion from food bank volunteers, but there is a hunger of compassion in a Government who are taking us back to the 1930s in spending and to Victorian times in attitudes to the poor. The Secretary of State sat out the last debate on food banks. Will the Minister apologise for the Government’s staggering complacency in the face of a food crisis in which an advanced nation cannot feed its working poor and its vulnerable, or will he join again the collective chorus of denial in the dying days of this Government?
George Eustice
The Government have got 1.7 million people back into work and taken 3 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. If the Labour party had had its way, it would have frozen energy prices at the top of the market, but we have seen energy prices continue to fall. Food prices have fallen for the first time since 2002 and are continuing to do so.
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)
8. If she will review the measures put in place to protect bats and newts under the EU habitats directive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
DEFRA completed a review of the national implementation of the habitats directive in 2012. Although the review found that implementation was largely working well, it identified measures to improve things further, which have largely been delivered. In addition, the European Commission has started its own evaluation of the directive, which is due to conclude in the spring of 2016.
Mr Robathan
Before I receive any hate mail, may I say that I am a keen conservationist and that I like bats and newts? However, as my hon. Friend intimated, there are problems with the implementation of the EU habitats directive that are costing the taxpayer and private citizens huge amounts of money—millions and millions of pounds. I say gently to him that, during the review, Natural England and other agencies gold-plated the EU habitats directive to a great extent. Just to give an example, when I bought my semi-derelict house, there were 24 great crested newts in the cellar. If, heaven forfend, I had picked them all up and taken them outside, I would have been liable to spend 12 years in jail and pay a fine of £120,000.
Mr Speaker
I think we have got the gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman’s inquiry.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend is right. The Conservative party has a proud history of conservation. Indeed, we introduced the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I point out to him that since our 2012 review, the changes to Natural England’s licensing procedures have saved applicants an estimated £535,000 and 678 weeks of delay. DEFRA has assisted the Church of England to produce guidance to simplify the consideration of bats in churches and has funded research into bat deterrence. DEFRA will continue to work with stakeholders to address the problems that he has identified.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
9. What assessment she has made of successful strategies by UK food and drink businesses to export their products in the last 12 months.
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
10. What steps she has taken to ensure that people are aware that by 2016 it will be a legal requirement to microchip their dog.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The draft Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 have recently been debated in both Houses and will come into force shortly. The regulations require that all keepers of dogs must, by April 2016, have their dogs microchipped. Welfare groups and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have already taken steps to raise awareness of that requirement, and DEFRA will continue to work closely with vets and charities to highlight the new requirement.
Douglas Carswell
In a number of western countries where microchipping has been compulsory, fewer dogs are microchipped than in the UK where it has been voluntary. What is the maximum penalty that will be imposed on anyone who fails to comply?
George Eustice
The first thing to note is that about 70% of dogs in this country are already microchipped under the voluntary scheme. Our judgment is that we now need to make it compulsory to get to the remaining 30%. We will take a proportionate approach to penalties. In the first instance, somebody will be given an enforcement notice, not a penalty, and 21 days to comply.
Charities are doing a great deal to raise awareness. Officials pointed out to me this morning that a recent edition of The Beano included a storyline put there by the Dogs Trust in which Gnasher had a microchip installed.
Mr Speaker
That is useful to all of us, and in particular to the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who would not otherwise have known of it.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that I raised with the Prime Minister last week the plight of Murphy, a dog who had been stolen in Bradford—one of a spate of dog thefts in the local area. Does the Minister think microchipping will help to reduce the number of dog thefts, and what other steps is his Department taking to ensure that we see fewer of these terrible instances?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is very distressing for families when they have a loved pet stolen. Compulsory microchipping of all dogs will make it far easier to detect such crimes, and we will issue guidance to vets and others that if they suspect a dog might have been stolen, they should report that to the relevant authorities.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
12. When she plans to implement schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
14. When she plans to review the allocation of common agricultural policy funds between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The review of allocations of common agricultural policy funds between UK Administrations will take place during 2016 and 2017. DEFRA will first work with the devolved Administrations to decide on the data needed to facilitate a comparison of payments across the UK. I have made it clear that one area that will be examined in the review is a comparison of land types and payment areas. That task will be easier once all UK Administrations have made the transition to area-based payments.
Mr Reid
I thank the Minister for that answer. If the review shows that farmers in any one part of the UK are being unfairly treated by the current allocation formula, it is obviously important that the outcome of the review is implemented straight away. I hope that the Minister will commit to supporting a speedy implementation.
George Eustice
We will consider implementation as part of the review. We have always made it clear that changing allocations before 2020—within the current programme—would have some legal difficulties, as well as practical difficulties for other Administrations. At the very latest, the changes will take effect from 2020.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
T3. Many of my constituents are concerned about the levels of sea bass stocks and measures taken to support them. Will the Minister indicate what action the Government are taking to tackle this important problem?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In December Council, the UK pressed hard for a commitment to protect bass stocks. We got a statement from the Commission and subsequently wrote to it. I can confirm that it has now implemented emergency measures to protect bass during the spawning season and ban the very damaging practice of pair trawling, which is a major step forward.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
T2. My constituents who run rural businesses were very disappointed that the north Pennines LEADER bid for support was turned down. They think mistakes were made in the assessment. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the bid is re-examined?
George Eustice
There is an appeals process and a number of bids were not successful. This was a competitive process. The LEADER group to which the hon. Lady refers is welcome to submit an appeal for consideration.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
T4. The Secretary of State is already the toast of the people of Southwell after she gave them the flood grants they had so dearly asked for, but she could cement her reputation in this part of Nottinghamshire by helping us to export our greatest gift to the world’s tables: the bramley apple. As everyone knows, the bramley apple was created by Miss Brailsford of Southwell, although the name was ruthlessly taken by the local butcher, Mr Bramley. The bramley apple is of course ubiquitous in this country, but is virtually unexportable because it is not known in the rest of the world. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that, with the staff and expertise she is building in new markets, she is developing expertise in branding so that we can create great British brands, which is the key to export?
George Eustice
The evidence does not bear out what the hon. Gentleman says. On delays to payments, benefit payments are now made more quickly—93% are paid on time—and hardship payments are now available alongside sanctions.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
What percentage reduction in badger numbers did the two pilot culls achieve, and would it be inaccurate to say it was far more likely than not that both culls failed to meet the target of a 70% reduction?
Poultry Industry
George Eustice Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on his continued interest in this subject, and on securing this important debate on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the impact that it might have on the poultry industry.
As the hon. Gentleman says, our poultry industry is vital to the UK economy and is one of the most successful across Europe, supporting around 73,000 jobs in the UK and contributing £3.3 billion annually to the UK GDP. I am aware that, as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) pointed out, there is a very strong poultry industry in Northern Ireland as well, so securing and building export markets is particularly important for sales of dark poultry meat and so-called fifth quarter products. This provides added value markets for poultry meat products not generally consumed domestically, and therefore increases the value of each bird.
We have continued to seek access to foreign markets for our poultry products. The hon. Member for South Down highlighted the potential in China. Just last week the Secretary of State was in China. One of the things she was doing was progressing negotiations to open the potentially lucrative market there for chicken feet. One of the interesting things one learns in this job is that although there is not a large market for chicken feet in this country, they are regarded as a delicacy in China and therefore fetch a value that cannot be achieved here.
International exports of UK poultry meat increased by 31% over the first half of last year. This growth has been supported by new markets opened in, for instance, Madagascar and Mozambique. Exports of live poultry increased by 9% in this period, with particularly strong growth in Africa. This growth has continued despite some of the challenges that the industry has faced, and is a strong indication of both the innovation of the industry and the strong partnership that the industry has with Government.
As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire pointed out, there are wider benefits for other sectors in the food industry from increasing access to foreign markets. For instance, in 2013 UK producers exported almost £2 billion-worth of food, feed and drink to the US. A comprehensive trade agreement between the EU and the US could add as much as £10 billion annually to UK GDP. One independent study estimates that total UK food and drink exports could increase by around 4.5% as a result of TTIP, so securing an ambitious deal in TTIP is a priority for the Government and we are prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure that we achieve a deal that provides the best possible outcome for the UK.
I know that there are some concerns, specifically in the poultry industry, about the potential impact of TTIP. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I had a meeting with the British Poultry Council last year to discuss its concerns in some detail. We should know that one consequence of freer trade with the US is a potential increase in the level of competition for UK producers. We need to consider the implications of the trade deal for different sectors within the farming industry.
Jim Shannon
Although we have made concessions in deals with the United States, we sometimes find the United States very reluctant to do likewise. Has the Minister any experience of that in relation to food imports and exports?
George Eustice
It is widely anticipated that the US will make concessions, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The opening offer from the EU was deemed to be somewhat more generous than the opening offer that came from the US. That was recognised. At a session that I had with Tom Vilsack, who was representing the US, and other EU leaders, that was one of the points that was raised.
I appreciate the concerns about the implications of the different approaches taken to food safety and animal welfare as between the US and the EU and, in particular, whether this could place UK producers at a competitive disadvantage. I shall return to this point later in my remarks. First, we need to recognise that any free trade agreement is about setting the foundations for a better, more effective trading environment for our producers. This includes outlining specific areas for deeper collaboration to ensure that we are maximising trade opportunities. For agriculture, this includes establishing a better transatlantic relationship with regard to animal and plant health—or, to use the jargon, the sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
The aim of TTIP will be to formalise how the EU and US work together in this area to facilitate trade, while protecting human, animal and plant health. I should point out that that is not something new. For example, the EU has negotiated deals with a number of countries, including with Canada and Korea—both of those deals include dedicated sections on animal and plant health measures. Each agreement sets out some specific details in a tailored way, but ultimately outlines a template for future co-operation in a given field. If we can achieve that with Canada and Korea, I see no reason why it should not in principle be possible to achieve the same with the US.
We should bear in mind the fact that a free trade agreement is just the beginning of the process, not the end. Once agreed, TTIP would form the basis from which to negotiate specific market access issues, product by product. For example, the detail of specific sanitary requirements for poultry exports to the USA would be set out in an export health certificate, which would be negotiated only once discussions on equivalence had been concluded. The UK would be fully engaged in all stages of these European-led negotiations to ensure that UK exporters get the most favourable conditions possible in order to facilitate our exports. We should remember that exports are as important for our industry as they are for the US.
We should recognise that it is inevitable that different countries will take a different approach to ensuring food safety and animal welfare. The UK and wider EU farm industry takes a farm-to-fork approach to food safety, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire pointed out, whereas the US approach has historically focused on the safety of the end product and taking safety measures closer to the point that food is consumed. Although such differences in approach are definitely relevant, they should not present an insurmountable obstacle to trade, which is why the principle of equivalence is important.
Ms Ritchie
Will the Minister indicate how the British Government intend to reconcile our much higher standards for poultry meat with the lower standards in the United States? That is the basic fear that we are expressing on behalf of Moy Park in Northern Ireland, the second largest poultry producer in the UK.
George Eustice
That is precisely what is going on in the detailed discussions to which I have referred. Many of the points the hon. Lady asks about would be resolved when export health certificates were agreed, and those certificates sometimes include a recognition of animal welfare considerations. Such details will be teased out in the negotiations, but I would say to the hon. Lady that we already import quite a lot of food from the US—from confectionary to cereals—and it is already required to meet EU standards. Such food is not necessarily produced directly in compliance with EU regulations, but through negotiation it has been deemed to meet EU standards. TTIP would apply a similar principle.
We certainly do not want a trade deal that undermines the current good farming practices in the UK sector, which are a hallmark of our poultry industry. I can reassure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire that EU negotiators have consistently stated that we will uphold the EU’s food safety standards throughout the TTIP discussions.
Roger Williams
I thank the Minister for that assurance, but one criticism of the TTIP negotiations is that they are rather opaque. Would it not be better if the assurance that he has given could be made more openly, thereby giving the industry more confidence?
George Eustice
I will come on to the EU negotiating mandate in a moment.
Although our approaches differ from those of the US, there are also opportunities, particularly when it comes to welfare. TTIP presents an opportunity for us to work with the US to improve co-operation on animal welfare and promote international standards. If we take an optimistic approach, there is the possibility of leading calls for an improvement in animal welfare practices in the US, perhaps as the quid pro quo for access to the EU market. We should not lose sight of that opportunity.
We also continue to support the European Commission to ensure that high welfare standards are a requirement of the trade agreement, and we continue to work through international bodies such as OIE—the World Organisation for Animal Health—both to raise standards and to ensure that signatory countries fully implement the decisions reached.
Returning to the point I raised about the negotiating mandate, it is important to recognise in respect of the transparency for which the hon. Gentleman argues that the EU’s negotiating mandate is publicly available online and sets out the key principles for animal and plant health in the TTIP negotiations. I would encourage any hon. Member who feels that these are too opaque to look at that mandate, which, for instance, highlights key areas for further co-operation, including using international standards, having a science-based approach to risk assessment and tackling animal welfare. Both food standards and animal welfare considerations are hard-wired into the EU negotiating mandate. The EC has made it clear in all its pronouncements that it considers it to be important, and it has not lost sight of that importance.
In conclusion, I believe that the UK poultry industry can remain resilient in an increasingly competitive global industry. For their part, the Government will continue to support the industry by opening new markets and promoting competitiveness. For example, we are investing £160 million in the UK agri-tech strategy to help take innovations from the laboratory to the farm. That strategy is already investing in two projects in the poultry sector—one on a more humane way of killing poultry and the other on creating a bank of genetic information on broilers and using that information to aid future breeding programmes. We are also reducing the regulatory burden on industry through implementing a risk-based approach to inspections. I believe that our excellent track record on animal welfare, traceability and production standards will continue to provide opportunities for British products in foreign markets. The British poultry industry has been very successful at exporting.
Jim Shannon
The Minister talks about the efforts made on the mainland here in the United Kingdom, and we are very grateful for that, but I wonder whether information on advances made in the industry here are exchanged with the devolved Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—so that our industry in Northern Ireland does not lose out.
George Eustice
Yes, the agri-tech strategy is a UK one, and we work with research establishments throughout the UK. Much of the information that comes out of the agri-tech strategy is made available.
It is also important that we continue to work together to ensure that high industry standards and quality of produce are maintained and demonstrated to our trading partners to facilitate further growth in exports. As I said, the UK poultry industry has been successful in that regard. Opening new markets is a long and complex process, but we are determined to support the poultry industry to capitalise on global export opportunities. We should not lose sight of the fact that free trade is a two-way street, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire pointed out. On the whole, a more open and efficient transatlantic trade environment presents major opportunities for UK food and drink producers, and will also deliver real benefits for consumers.
I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and others have highlighted in the debate, but I believe that there are benefits to the UK economy and to the UK food industry in concluding a TTIP deal. I believe that the sanitary and phytosanitary issues raised can be accommodated in such an agreement.
Question put and agreed to.