Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

I well remember, when we launched our upland support package, which brought £26 million of new money to help support farmers and their communities in the uplands, sheep farmers saying to me that this problem of succession is a serious one. So I was delighted to hear that Northumberland national park, in partnership with Lantra, is encouraging a programme with the local college in that national park for upland farming skills. A similar scheme called Dartmoor skills has also been introduced. I think that young people will increasingly be attracted to the tradition of sheep farming, which has a bright future.

[George Eustice]

Last year, the Welsh Assembly Government launched the young entrants support scheme—an innovative project that offers grant funding and business mentoring to new entrants and young farmers. Will the Secretary of State look at replicating something similar in the UK? We have a real problem in that around a third of farmers are over the age of 65. We must try to get some new people in.

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I think that that scheme has merit. As I announced earlier this month, we will have a rural strand as part of the growth review. I am sure that all Members want to see part of the economic recovery of our country vested in rural areas, which have often been neglected. A huge opportunity exists to help young people to enter land-based employment and to encourage rural enterprise.

Bovine TB

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

That was an emotive intervention without a critical question. This is a science-led, evidence-based policy for the eradication of TB.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

The decision by the Secretary of State to grasp this contentious issue will be welcomed by farmers in the west country who have been dismayed by years of dithering by the previous Government. I support the introduction of a vaccine, which we all know is the long-term solution, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the limitations of a vaccine is that it is not a cure, as it can only inoculate healthy badgers against the disease?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The life cycle of the badger is approximately four years and therefore vaccination to reduce the rate of infection is a slower method than controlled reduction by controlled shooting.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

There are very good laws in place to punish the illegal killing of any animal. If they are not being enforced, they must be and we will take steps to make sure that happens. However, this is also a good opportunity to applaud gamekeepers for the wonderful work they do in providing excellent biodiversity across our countryside.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

T5. Further to the earlier answer to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about the groceries adjudicator, the Minister will be aware that the proposal enjoys widespread support in the farming industry, but there are concerns that farmers will be reluctant to volunteer information for fear of reprisals. Does the Minister agree that trade bodies such as the National Farmers Union must do their bit by collating and publishing information from their members, to help guide the supermarket adjudicator to the right target and identify bad practice?

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

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is widespread concern that individuals might be loth to make complaints because of the risk of being penalised by the retailer involved. As he will know, the draft Bill allows for third-party representations, but does not allow for representations from trade bodies. To give a precise answer, there is nothing to prevent the National Farmers Union or any other body from gathering information, publishing it and making things clear. Obviously, the adjudicator would then have discretion over whether to pursue the investigation further.

Fisheries

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate on the important issue of fish discards. I rarely sign early-day motions, but I felt compelled to support his recent motion on fish discards, because the way in which we kill unnecessarily and throw back fish on an industrial scale is an absolute scandal that, as many Members have said, has continued for far too long.

We should recognise that this is not a new problem. The environmental consequences of the common fisheries policy have been recognised and argued over for more than 20 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) said. I remember speaking about the scandal of fish discards as long ago as 1999 when I was a candidate for another party.

We should note, though, that some modest progress has been made over the past decade. The volume of fish discarded was actually reduced from 2002 to 2008. However, with some estimates suggesting that we are still throwing away more than half of all the fish caught, it is clear that we are still only scratching the surface and that significant changes are required.

Three key factors are driving the practice of discards: the lack of a market, the quota system and the problem of undersized fish. On the first of those, DEFRA estimates that more than half of all the fish that are discarded are those for which there is currently no market. That is not the fault of the CFP, but it is the largest single area in which we could make a difference.

One of the most important outcomes of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s “Hugh’s Fish Fight” series was the call for, and the beginning of, the creation of demand for other fish species. When I recently visited Falfish, a fish processor in my constituency, it reported a significant increase, for instance, in demand for pouting. Although far smaller than cod, it has a similar texture and can be used as a substitute. We all have a role to play in creating a market for currently unfashionable fish—consumers by being more adventurous, the industry and processors by doing more to market less popular fish and the Government through projects such as their Fishing for the Markets scheme.

The other causes of fish discards relate to the CFP. DEFRA figures estimate that 22% of all discards are fish for which there is no quota, and that 24% are undersized. I have to say that I think that last figure understates the problem, because it is calculated on weight rather than the number of fish. Addressing those two problems is where we need meaningful change.

As I have said, the problem with the CFP is that we have talked about it for a long time but nothing has changed. If one thing has really been clear over the past 20 years, it is that the most successful policy innovation has taken place when national Governments have been free to experiment with new ideas and approaches. We have a bit of a problem with the structure and culture of the EU, because it does not lend itself to an evidence-based policy approach. All too often, policy development becomes a mere negotiation and the outcome is a policy based on the lowest common denominator rather than one informed by the power of ideas. The EU is currently considering another round of CFP reform, and we will soon find out whether it is now fit for purpose or whether important issues such as fisheries policy require a quality of thinking and reasoning that is simply beyond institutions such as the EU.

Another problem is that a one-size-fits-all policy cannot cover such a wide area. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that fish do not carry national passports or recognise national borders, but they do not carry EU passports or recognise EU waters either.

[Mr MacNeil]

It is also misleading to talk as though fish all behave in the same way. Iceland talks about migratory fish, straddling stocks and non-migratory fish, so the idea that all fish are the same is highly misleading. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to make that point, because I did not have a chance when the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) was speaking.

[George Eustice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I could not agree more. It is true that fish do not recognise national waters, but it is important that we have a tailored local solution to protect our ecosystems. We should not get bogged down in whether waters are national or European. That is why, like the hon. Member for Brent North, I am attracted to the idea of breaking up the current structure of the CFP and putting in place a regionalised management system. It could retain the common objectives of protecting the ecosystem, having sustainable fishing and minimising discards, but the delivery of those common objectives would vary in response to local realities.

I wish to say a little about some of the conclusions that we can draw from successful experiments that other countries have come up with. First, Norway has found a way of dealing with the discards caused by fish caught over quota by allowing fishermen to land those fish but paying them only a fraction of the market price. Let us consider that. Secondly, Norway and Scotland have both had success with real-time closures, with areas being closed to fishing when there is a problem with excessive by-catch. That creates an incentive for the industry to use netting gear that reduces by-catch, so let us consider that, too.

Thirdly, our fishermen in the south-west are involved in a really successful project, Project 50%, which has brought together fishermen and scientists to develop new fishing practices that have dramatically cut fish discards. Let us consider that, too. Finally, Cornish fisherman led the way by having the first no-take zone within European waters, so that there is a sanctuary for spawning fish. We should also consider that.

If we are serious about developing a sustainable approach to fishing, we need to change the basis on which quota is allocated. Rather than simply basing it on some historical formula or rights, we should reward good fishing practices by giving the most sustainable fishermen the most quota. That could act as a powerful incentive. Those who adopt good fishing practices that substantially reduce by-catch will be allocated more quota, as will producer organisations that are the most successful at creating markets for unfashionable fish species, whereas producers who turn a blind eye to the need to reduce discards and continue as if nothing has changed will face losing some of their quota.

If we adopt such solutions, we can improve the CFP and dramatically reduce our fish discards.

Water and Sewerage Charges (South West Water)

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing this important debate on the problem of water charges in the south-west. As he said, it is good to see colleagues from all parties here, many of whom have campaigned long and hard on this issue over a number of years.

I want to focus much more on the difficulty that we have solving this problem than on the problem itself, which has been comprehensively articulated by previous speakers. As I see it, the problem comes down to three key issues, which are often highlighted by Ofwat. First, half a dozen MPs from the south-west face the brutal problem of persuading 600 MPs elsewhere in the country that it is worth their while voting through legislation to require water customers in their areas to pay a sum of money—albeit only £1.50 a year—without, as they would see it, getting anything in return.

The second difficulty is one that the Minister has previously raised: someone on benefits or a very low income—someone living on the minimum wage in somewhere such as Manchester—could end up subsidising the bills of a millionaire with a second home in Cornwall.

The third problem that is sometimes cited is that we might set some sort of precedent. Thames Water is, for example, doing a lot of infrastructure work with the Thames tunnel, and the argument is that if we make an exception for the south-west, recognising what has been done there, the injustice that has been suffered and the infrastructure that has had to be put in place, we would be setting a precedent for other water companies.

The answer is to design a scheme to address those concerns—something that should not be beyond the wit of man. I have raised the issue with the Minister before, so he will be aware of my suggestion for a fair discount scheme. There would be two key criteria at the heart of that formula. First, there would be affordability. We would use the definition of affordability cited in Anna Walker’s report, which says that anyone who spends more than 3% of their household income on water bills is water poor. We should ensure that all those who spend more than 3% are eligible for some form of discount. That would catch about 70% of South West Water customers, and millionaires with second homes in Cornwall would not be eligible because they would not spend more than 3% of their household incomes on water. That would deal with the second argument that I set out about people on low incomes subsidising millionaires.

The second key criteria at the heart of the scheme would be recognising fairness. The scheme would recognise in absolute terms the scale of the bills in the south-west. People often have bills of £700 or £800 a year, and I have even heard anecdotally of people getting bills of £1,000 a year. That is why water charges are a political issue in the south-west in a way that they are nowhere else. There is a real issue of fairness just in terms of the absolute size of the bills.

We would, therefore, have a discount, which would be tapered depending on how much people’s bills varied from the national average. We would say that people in the south-west, whose bills are double the national average in many cases, were entitled to the full discount, which might be £80 or £100 a year. They would still pay more than anyone else, but they would receive a significant discount, which they would recognise as making a real difference.

In areas such as that covered by Thames Water, people might be technically water poor, but the fairness criteria would recognise that water bills in London are already very low and, indeed, below the national average. The taper would ensure that the discount given to those who were water poor in the Thames Water area was far smaller, because we would be recognising that their bills were not such a difficult issue and started from a low level.

The provisions would ensure that we had a national scheme that was open and available to all. Such a scheme would target affordability and not subsidise millionaires. It would also recognise unfairness and the fact that water charges are a political issue in places such as Devon and Cornwall by having a taper and changing the discount depending on the variants.

I put those thoughts to the Minister a couple of months ago, and lots of work is going on. I commend the approach that he has taken; he has worked incredibly hard to find a solution. The coalition has given a commitment to address the problem, and we all have a reason for wanting a successful outcome. I very much hope that we can find a solution together.

Animal Welfare

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess, for this debate on animal welfare and trade negotiations.

The importance that we place on the welfare of other animal species on the planet is a measure of how civilised our society is. We all know that animals feel pain and fear. They have maternal instincts. Anyone who has ever had a dog knows that they can even feel emotions such as loneliness and jealousy. How we treat sentient animals that are raised in captivity for food really does matter and says something about us as a society.

Animal welfare is an area in which legislators should be prepared to take action. The truth is that the public care deeply about the welfare of animals, but the paradox is that in a modern, sophisticated society, people are often separated from farming practices and the slaughter of the animals that they consume. There is therefore a danger that the human conscience of consumers ends up being dissipated by the simple fact that, for the majority of people, farming and slaughter processes are, frankly, out of sight and out of mind. The only way to bridge the gap between the empathy that people might feel for animals and the information that they have about farming is by legislators exercising judgment and implementing laws that recognise the ethical dimension of how we produce our food.

There is another element to this. Farming is sometimes described as an industry, but I would say that it is not like any other industry—it is unique. It is not just about churning out a product for consumption at a given unit price. Farming is intrinsically linked to life itself and entwined with the environment, of which humans are just one part. If we take the special nature of farming for granted, we end up in trouble with animal health problems, disease and even human health problems. In recent decades, that is exactly what has happened. Consideration of animal welfare standards has been trumped by an apparently more important theory about free trade. That is wrong.

I am a Conservative, and no one believes in the concept of free trade more than I do, but even I can see that the concept of free trade is frankly a lower order consideration when compared with more fundamental issues such as animal welfare and the health of our environment. All too often in recent decades, moves to take a lead and to improve animal welfare standards at home end up being stopped in their tracks by the threat that we will merely export our industry to countries that have even lower welfare standards. That fear is entirely justified.

When the UK unilaterally banned sow stalls for pig production, our industry lost out to that in other countries where pigs were treated less well. The concern that our farmers will lose out as a result of improved welfare legislation means that the policy response has typically been to trim our ambitions and to stifle our consciences, because the theory of unfettered free trade has been considered to be a concept that is beyond challenge in any circumstances, and seen as a principle that trumps concerns such as animal welfare.

It is time to challenge that muddled thinking. A civilised society should have a system that encourages competition to raise animal welfare standards, not to lower them. We should not jeopardise our farming industry simply because of some arbitrary rules set down many years ago in the general agreement on tariffs and trade and since enforced by the World Trade Organisation. I shall return later to some of the relevant articles in GATT, because I shall argue that many of the provisions to recognise animal welfare standards in the world trade system already exist, but we have not been good enough at taking them up.

First, I shall speak about the coalition Government’s position, and that of the Conservative party. Just a year ago, in February 2010, the Conservative party published a very good document, “A New Age of Agriculture”, which was our agenda for British farming. The section on animal health and welfare contained an explicit commitment:

“We will promote animal welfare at an international level and work towards the inclusion of production standards in WTO negotiations.”

That could not be more unequivocal or clear, but I decided a couple of months ago to follow it up and to see what progress there had been in making the case to the WTO and internationally for the changes. I tabled a parliamentary question asking what discussions had taken place on this important issue. The response was:

“None. The World Trade Organisation’s…Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement only allows controls on food safety, plant and animal health grounds. While we are totally committed to improving animal welfare standards the situation is that unanimous agreement of the WTO’s membership would be needed to change this to include production standards such as those relating to animal welfare. Such agreement is unlikely to be forthcoming because many of the WTO’s members would regard such standards as likely to facilitate protectionism rather than trade.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 957W.]

What I really want to know from the Minister is whether that represents a change in the Government’s position, and if so did the coalition require that? I would find that surprising. The Conservative party has its differences with the Liberal Democrats, but I would have thought that Liberal Democrats cared about such issues as much as we do. I wonder whether it is simply that the Department has other priorities and has not yet managed to put the matter back on the agenda. I would like some clarity on that from the Minister.

Returning to GATT and the WTO, I want to say a little about how we can get from A to B—from wringing our hands about the problems of animal welfare and how we improve it within the WTO system to being able to implement and obtain agreement. I am conscious that it is easy for people to say, “Oh well, it’s impossible to achieve change because of the difficulty of getting worldwide agreement.” The WTO is undoubtedly reluctant to recognise what are described as process and production methods—PPMs—when dealing with world trade disputes. As I said earlier, farming is unique and unlike any other industry. That is why we must ensure that the WTO opens its eyes to those wider considerations and takes a look at issues such as animal welfare. The truth is that the provisions to do that already exist in GATT. All we need is the confidence to get on and implement them effectively.

First, article XX makes it absolutely clear that animal health is a legitimate factor to be considered in trade negotiations, but the European Union has been weak in arguing that. It states that

“nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:

(a)        necessary to protect public morals;

(b)        necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health”.

We should be arguing that the health of an animal is intrinsically linked to its welfare, and that under article XX that should be a legitimate consideration that is factored into trade negotiations.

Secondly, article III is also relevant to the issue. It deals with regulations within countries and says that there should be equal treatment for like products. It states:

“The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin”.

The debate is about the definition of “like products”. All too often in the recent past, people have said that a chicken is a chicken regardless of how it is produced. That is simply not the case. In the egg industry, it is recognised clearly that the method of production counts and that eggs are not all alike: all eggs sold in the UK must have a number from 1 to 4 to designate whether they were produced in cages, or are barn eggs, free range eggs or organic eggs.

The Minister will be aware that there is much discussion in the poultry industry about the danger that the new EU legislation being introduced to improve conditions for cage-reared birds may be implemented disproportionately. It may be implemented properly in the UK, but not elsewhere in countries such as Poland. That is causing a lot of concern in the poultry sector, and I understand that the Government may even be considering banning eggs from EU countries where they have not been produced to the new legally required minimum standard.

What an upside down world it is when we argue that it is okay to ban products that do not match our legal standards in the EU, where we supposedly have a single market and are all part of one happy family, but that adopting similar measures and a similar stance as countries outside the EU is considered to be a bridge too far and a step that simply cannot be taken, although the methods of production would be illegal in the UK. Clearly, something has gone wrong. When it comes to agriculture, we must be very clear that a “like” product must mean a product produced to the same standard of animal welfare. The principle that we have established in the egg industry, for example, should be applied to all meat products.

Before concluding, I want say a little about labelling and consumer choice. We have got ourselves into a bit of a muddle in some areas. We sometimes apply asymmetric legislation to farmers, and then tell them to compensate for those new laws by trying to command a premium in the market, to have better labelling and to try to obtain a higher price for their product. I think that is a cop-out because an important principle is involved. If a farmer makes the conscious choice to adopt farming practices such as organic farming, which go well beyond the legal minimum required, he does so voluntarily and having made a judgment that he will be able to command a premium in the market. However, if that farmer is forced by law to improve animal welfare standards, the responsibility is on legislators to ensure that he is not exposed to unfair competition due to others using practices that would be illegal in this country. Otherwise, we simply export cruelty abroad, and no one wants that.

My second point about consumer demand is that, notwithstanding my earlier argument about farming practices and slaughterhouses being remote from modern, sophisticated societies, in recent years there has been a sharp increase in demand for ethically produced food. There has been a huge growth in demand for free range eggs and other organic foods. Some argue that that is the solution, and that it is evidence that we do not need to change the rules of the World Trade Organisation, but I think it proves something different. If consumers are willing to recognise that there is a difference between products based on how they are produced, why cannot legislators recognise the same? During one test case at the WTO, it was held that

“differing consumer tastes and habits”

was a legitimate and relevant factor in determining whether products were, or were not, alike. The fact that consumers distinguish between food products based on the system of production strengthens the case for the Government to argue under article III that we should recognise higher animal welfare standards. Food produced to such standards is not like food that has had a lower level of production.

To conclude, it is time to modernise the World Trade Organisation and the world trade system generally. We should give nation states the right to safeguard their markets against imports produced in third countries to less civilised standards. We should not be asking the World Trade Organisation how to interpret articles III and XX, we should be telling it. Some say that such an approach risks protectionism and would undermine the interests of developing countries, but that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. It does not follow that welfare standards are lower in developing countries. Indeed, some of the worst excesses of the industrialisation of agriculture and factory farming tend to be associated with developed—not developing—countries. In many cases, developing countries pursue less intensive and more traditional farming practices that are better for animal welfare. Quite often, production processes in those countries are already informally regulated by large retailers in the UK who often insist that food produced in developing countries is produced to the same welfare standards as in the UK.

In truth, the latest Doha round of the World Trade Organisation has been stalled for several years. Rather than leave those negotiations in limbo, bogged down and making no progress, why should we not be realists and reconcile ourselves to the fact that, for all the reasons that I have identified, farming—especially livestock farming—is a special industry and a special case? That would free up the position as far as negotiations on other products and industries are concerned.

Requiring all exported meat to be produced at least to the same standards of the country to which it is destined is less radical than it sounds, and it could have a huge impact on our culture and on attitudes towards animal welfare. I hope that the Minister will take some of those points on board.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that I will be spending Christmas in his constituency, because my in-laws live there.

The importance of renewables is known and agreed upon throughout the House, and the Government recognise the value of increasing the amount of electricity that we produce from renewable energy. However, we also recognise the genuine local concerns, which have to be included in the planning process. We are reforming the planning system so that it will give local communities more of a say. We want to get that balance right, because it has become skewed in recent years.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

As part of his discussions with the DCLG, will the Minister consider transferring responsibility for the management of the rural development programme for England to local enterprise partnerships where they wish to take on that role?

[Richard Benyon]

The Department is currently considering the best way of handling the RDPE budget in future years, and we will certainly keep hon. Members informed.