Agricultural Transition Plan

Debate between George Eustice and Bob Stewart

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman has a habit of starting off by suggesting that he is going to pay me a compliment, and things go downhill quite quickly thereon. The area-based subsidy that we currently have has a habit of giving the largest payments to the wealthiest landowners. Sometimes these are people who are not really actively farming. Sometimes it is people who made their wealth in the City and are trying to shelter it in land, and then also qualify for taxpayers’ payments—sometimes running into millions of pounds. That cannot be right. The system that we are developing will reward people for what they do with their land and what they do to help nature recover.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has said that he hopes that this plan will encourage new entrants of people trying to get into farming. Will he briefly outline in what way it will be different from what happens now?

[George Eustice]

All the studies that have been done on this issue have shown that the single most important thing that we can do to help new entrants on to the land is to help those who perhaps should retire, or those who want to retire, to retire with dignity, so that more holdings come on to the market, land rents adjust to a sustainable level and there are opportunities for new entrants. We will then make available grants to support new entrants to invest and set up in their new enterprises.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Debate between George Eustice and Bob Stewart

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Wilson—and also for your stealth entrance, which went unnoticed by some Members in the Chamber.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on leading this debate. The scale of the petition on this issue shows just how much people care about it. Many hon. Members have received many emails about it. When I was about to make the decision early in the summer, I received some 50,000 emails and regret that it was impossible to reply to all of them. However, I understand that there is a lot of public concern about the matter.

I commend my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way to so many hon. Members who wanted to speak. I did not anticipate the luxury of having time at the end of this debate, given the numbers present at the beginning; nevertheless, those numbers show just how important this issue is. I have been passionate about it throughout my time as an MP. I worked in the farming industry—we were fruit farmers and we had beehives on the farm—and three years ago I attended an event at which Friends of the Earth launched its “Bees Needs” campaign. It was a great campaign aimed at encouraging schools and people in towns and across the country to invest and help habitats for bees. I may have differences with Friends for the Earth about elements of the neonicotinoid debate, not least the emergency authorisations that I approved earlier this year—I will return to that—but I commend its work to raise awareness of the plight of our bees.

A number of hon. Members have talked about the reasons for the decline. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) suggested that the evidence was absolutely clear that the decline in the bee population could be linked directly to neonicotinoids, and neonicotinoids alone. That is an over-simplification. The reality is that we have seen declining bee populations since the mid-1950s. The reasons for the decline in our bee populations are many, varied and complex. We believe that a large element is loss of habitat, particularly the loss of wild, traditional flowering meadows. We have lost hedgerows, which are an important habitat for bees, particularly bumblebees.

We have also seen problems with disease, and sometimes stress makes bees more susceptible to disease. We have had varroa and hive mites, and a linked problem is that many of our honeybees are imported from countries such as Italy. Those bees are not genetically disposed to survive winters here in the UK so we often have winter losses. Indeed, in Cornwall—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is nodding—there is a project to reintroduce the native black bee. It is more resilient and produces less sugar, but keeps more of it for itself during the winter months so that it can survive.

Neonicotinoids are a relatively recent group of chemicals so we cannot directly attribute the decline in the bee population just to them. If hon. Members are serious about wanting to help bees, as I am, we must look at the wider picture, which is exactly what we have sought to do with our pollinator strategy. Just a few weeks ago, I launched the implementation plan to start moving that strategy forward. It includes a range of issues, such as commissioning new evidence so that we can better understand the pressures on our bees, and looking at integrated pest management.

Some hon. Members have suggested a different approach that does not rely on pesticides. I absolutely agree. In the decades ahead we are likely to see reduced reliance on chemical pesticides, probably the use of genetic technologies so that we can breed disease resistance directly into crops, and an alternative approach to husbandry, sometimes going back to the skills of rotation, which to some extent have been lost in modern farming, to reduce the build-up of pests, disease and weeds in the first place. We call that integrated pest management, and DEFRA hosts the voluntary initiative organisation, whose primary focus is encouraging the development of integrated management so that over time we will be able to reduce our reliance on chemical pesticides.

On neonicotinoids and authorisation of pesticides more generally, it is important to recognise that pesticides are tightly regulated. Active substances are approved at EU level only if they meet safety requirements. The UK is responsible for authorising products containing approved active substances and we carry out thorough assessment of the scientific evidence, drawing on advice from the UK’s independent expert scientists on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which I will return to later. The risks to species such as bees form a key part of the assessment before products are authorised, and the regulatory regime also provides for regular reviews to take account of the latest information and scientific knowledge.

On the specifics of neonicotinoids, the EU introduced restrictions from late 2013 on the use of three neonicotinoids —clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. This debate is nothing if not challenging on diction. The restrictions apply to a wide range of crops that are attractive to bees and cover amateur use—for example, in gardens. Other uses, such as seed treatment for autumn-sown cereals and sugar beet, remain approved. The restrictions are not time limited and remain in place unless the European Commission decides to change them. The Government have implemented the restrictions in full. When imposing them, the Commission acknowledged that the evidence is incomplete and promised to review the science relating to neonicotinoids and bees. That review is now under way and provides an important opportunity to produce an up-to-date assessment of all the scientific evidence. The European Food Safety Authority is carrying out the review and we anticipate that it will conclude its work next summer. The UK will contribute fully to the review as it progresses. We have said throughout that we want it to be firmly grounded on a strengthened scientific evidence base.

The shadow Minister mentioned the very good paper by Professor Charles Godfray and others, which was published in September and was a restatement of all the recent evidence on neonicotinoid insecticides and their effect on pollinators. I commend that report to any hon. Member interested in this issue. It is a very thorough examination of all the research that has been done—laboratory research that looks at the impact on bees of acute poisoning through very high levels of neonicotinoids, but also the beginnings of some of the field trials that have been taking place. There was an interesting field trial in Sweden, for instance. The people involved believed that there could be an impact on bumblebee populations, but not necessarily on honeybee populations.

The paper concludes that this is a very complex issue. Some of the work in Canada, for instance, concludes that there is no big impact on bee populations. However, the big conclusion from the paper is that we need more field-scale trials. That is why the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is at the moment in the UK doing a very large, comprehensive trial, the results of which we should have next spring, and those results will feed into the review currently being carried out by EFSA. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is also doing work in other European countries, so that we can better understand this disease.

Our position is that we will not remove the existing restrictions if the evidence points to the fact that those restrictions should remain. A number of hon. Members have talked about the precautionary principle. We are adopting a precautionary, evidence-based principle. We are very clear, though, that it should be a precautionary principle based on an assessment of risk, not theoretical hazard. That is where sometimes we have a difference of opinion with other European countries, because some of them look just at theoretical hazard rather than a true assessment of risk.

I want to turn now to the emergency authorisations that we made earlier this year, because this is a crucial point. If we want to make a precautionary restriction work, it is essential that we allow there to be some use in extreme cases—some use of emergency authorisations. That is now an established approach that we have. If we want a precautionary approach, over time fewer pesticides will be available on general licence, but as pesticides are removed as a precaution, it is important that we make available the opportunity to grant emergency authorisations. Otherwise we have all sorts of unintended consequences. We force farmers to start to use other chemicals that perhaps have escaped the attention of the scientific community, but are even more damaging. For instance, when the ban first came in, there was some evidence of a shift to using another chemical, called Mesurol, which was dangerous to birds. We then moved to ban that chemical, so we have to consider unintended consequences. We also have to consider the problem of resistance building up to other vital insecticides. For instance, there was growing resistance to overuse of pyrethroids. That is an issue to which we have to be sensitive.

To assess applications for emergency authorisations, we have a group of experts called the Expert Committee on Pesticides. That is a group of 15 academics. They are entomologists, toxicologists, professors and doctors, with unrivalled expertise in pesticides, toxicology and the environment. They give us advice on the applications that we receive for emergency authorisations.

It might be worth my pointing out that the use of emergency authorisations has grown in line with the withdrawal of pesticides for use on a general licence. In 2012, member states of the European Union granted a total of 193 emergency authorisations. Just 14 were from the UK in that year, making 7% of the total. In 2015, the number of emergency authorisations in the EU grew to 414, but only 11 emergency authorisations were granted in the UK, representing just 3% of all emergency authorisations made in the European Union. I therefore put it to hon. Members that far from being cavalier about this, the UK has a proven track record of showing more caution and being more thorough in the way it assesses those applications. The growth in applications is no surprise, because if products are withdrawn from the market, there will be an increase in the number of emergency authorisations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend the Minister any idea, in forecast terms, when we might know definitively what is killing off our bee population?

[George Eustice]

My general experience of these things is that the more science we have, the more evidence gaps get identified, so we never actually have a perfect picture and all we can ever do is make the best judgment we can with the science that we have. However, I do believe that much of the work that is being done—for instance, by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology—will mean a big increase and big improvement in our understanding of neonicotinoids in the future. Some of the work that we are commissioning as part of our national pollinator strategy will also assist in that process.

I want to turn now to the specific emergency authorisations in relation to the three neonicotinoids. We had two applications: one for Cruiser and one for Modesto; they were the products in question. The first application from the National Farmers Union asked for an authorisation covering 79% of the area of England. The conclusion, which was published, of the Expert Committee on Pesticides was that although it acknowledged that there was a problem with cabbage stem flea beetle in particular that could not be controlled by other means, it believed that an authorisation covering 79% of the country did not satisfy the requirement of its being strictly confined and restricted. For that reason, it recommended refusal of the first application. I accepted that: I refused the first application.

There was subsequently a second application from the NFU, bringing much more detailed evidence from agronomists of the impact on the ground of cabbage stem flea beetle in particular, county by county. On the basis of that, it put in an application for use over 5% of the English area, which roughly represented the area of Suffolk, which had suffered particularly badly. The Expert Committee on Pesticides assessed that second application and concluded that it satisfied all the requirements, so it recommended that we approve that emergency authorisation and that is what we did.

Control of Horses Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Bob Stewart

Friday 24th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to tackling the issue of fly-grazing. Before I begin, perhaps I ought to declare an interest: I am a member of the Flicka Foundation, which is a horse and donkey sanctuary based in my constituency. As part of my membership package, I think I adopted a donkey called Tabitha.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) has long championed this issue. As he said in his opening remarks, he first held a debate in Parliament on this issue as long ago as 2012. I am happy to tell him that, sometimes, persistence pays off in this place, because I am delighted to confirm that the Government will support this simple but important Bill, which we believe could have a significant impact on helping people deal effectively with the issue of fly-grazing.

Many hon. Members will have had large amounts of correspondence from their constituents on this important issue. Animal welfare charities have done a great deal to highlight some of the challenges, including by producing reports such as “Left on the Verge”, to which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), referred. As some hon. Members have said, it is estimated that there are some 3,000 stray ponies and fly-grazing horses in Wales and another 2,500 or so in England, so this is a serious problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer has pointed out, this is not the first time we have debated the issue. Indeed, last November, about a month into my appointment as the Minister responsible for farming, we had a debate that had been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). During that debate, we heard about the many problems caused by people fly-grazing their horses, and we have heard more about that today. In some parts of the country, significant numbers of horses are being fly-grazed and such incidents appear to be occurring more frequently. There have been incidents of fly-grazing horses straying on to the highways and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer noted in introducing the Bill, in at least one case that has led, sadly, to the death of a person in a road accident.

Since the November debate, there have been many calls on the UK Government to replicate for England the provisions in the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014. We have been watching developments in Wales with interest. My hon. Friend said that he was reluctant to seek inspiration from Wales on this issue. As a Cornishman, I have no such reluctance: we western Celts have much in common and often learn from one another.

During last November’s debate I set out the approach we have taken in England to date, which has been to encourage all relevant local interests—local authorities, police, farmers, landowners and animal welfare charities—to co-operate to tackle the issues on the ground using the existing legislation. It is worth remembering that that there are four key relevant Acts, including the Animals Act 1971 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is relevant to the issue of horses in distress. I also highlighted during the November debate the potential for the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to give us stronger powers to deal with fly-grazing; I will return to that later. Finally, there is the Highways Act 1980.

Since the debate in November, we have given the issue more consideration. I can tell the House that my noble Friend Lord de Mauley has done a lot of work on it. He has met welfare charities, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, to discuss what can be done. The Government now recognise that making small amendments to the 1971 Act would go a long way to ensure that the provisions work better for those trying to deal with fly-grazing. The amendments would bring the legislation up to date, and make the process more efficient and less burdensome.

The debate in November brought out the fact, which has been highlighted again today, that there have been several changes since 1971. The first change is the introduction of microchipping and horse IDs. As I noted in the previous debate, since 2009 it has been a legal requirement that horses be identified with a microchip and passport. We know that many people who fly-graze horses do not do that, which has created two problems that we did not have in 1971. First, it makes it very difficult to identify and tackle the owners. Secondly, it makes it all the more expensive for local authorities and others to deal with the issue. Once they have detained a horse, they have to microchip and passport it themselves before selling it, which places added costs and burdens on them.

Another development since 1971 has been the change in the mode of sale or disposal of fly-grazed horses. Under the 1971 Act, a detained horse can be disposed of only through sale at market or auction. In 1971, when the Act was drawn up, animals fetched a good price at auction, and fewer horses were fly-grazed. My hon. Friend’s Bill proposes to amend the 1971 Act to provide a more flexible set of options, including euthanasia, sale or gifting to a charity.

The reality is that horses often have little or no monetary value today. There have even been cases of the owner of a detained horse buying it back at a knock-down price at auction, after it had been microchipped by the person who detained it. The fly-grazer was therefore able to gain a legally compliant horse at little cost, which cannot be fair. We need to address that matter, and my hon. Friend’s Bill does just that.

We have listened to the animal welfare charities. They have strongly argued for a mechanism whereby fly-grazed horses can either be re-homed or, in some cases, put down. Sadly, there is so little demand for horses and so much demand for re-homing that charities such as the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare and Redwings have all reported that their re-homing centres are full of unwanted horses.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is there a direct correlation between the increase in fly-grazing and the fact that the value of horses has dropped so much? People just do not care any more: as horses have no value, they might as well fly-graze them.

[George Eustice]

From listening to the animal welfare charities, we know that part of the problem has undoubtedly been a lot of irresponsible breeding of horses. Horses are being bred for whom there is no market. Sadly, they are then abandoned by people who, frankly, are not fit to own horses in the first place.

I want to move on to the central feature of my hon. Friend’s Bill, which is the length of time that an animal must be detained before it can be sold. One difficulty created by the 1971 Act is that it requires the person who detains a horse to look after it for up to 14 days. During that time, they are responsible for its welfare and for preventing it from straying, and they are liable for any costs incurred. The Bill would permit the disposal of horses after the equivalent of four working days, rather than the present 14 days. We think that four working days strikes a good balance: it is lower than the figure of seven days that applies in Wales and, to respond to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), it will significantly reduce the cost to both local authorities and landowners of intervening in such cases, because they can sell or dispose of an animal after only four working days.

There are consequential amendments that must be made to the 1971 Act, one of which relates to the point that was put to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough about the requirement to give the police notice that one has detained a horse within 24 hours. In addition to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, it is worth pointing out that currently, notice must be given within three days. We think that it is proportionate to reduce the deadline to 24 hours, given that we have condensed the period of detention. There is a requirement to give notice to the police so that if they receive a report of a horse going missing, they can reconcile it with the report of fly-grazing, and thereby reunite ponies and horses with their legitimate owners who have just managed to mislay them.

National Referendum on the European Union

Debate between George Eustice and Bob Stewart

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

It would come as soon as we had finished the negotiation, and if I had my way, it would happen very quickly and, certainly, within this Parliament.

The bail-outs in Greece and Ireland were technically against EU law, but the European financial stability facility was agreed and implemented within days; three years ago, the bank bail-outs breached EU state aid rules, but again exemptions were created when needs required it. Sweden has technically been in breach of the treaties for a decade, because it does not have an opt-out from the euro, but the EU has had to learn to live with it, as that is the political reality. The Danish Government have unilaterally introduced extra customs checks on their borders, which are in breach of the Schengen agreement, but, again, the EU has had to learn to live with it.

The lesson from those examples is that EU law is a flexible notion. In fact, the European Union Act 2011 explicitly states that EU regulations and directives have force in this country only when Parliament allows them to, so we must be far more willing to set aside the authority of the European Court of Justice, and crucially we should not let dreary treaties and EU protocols get in the way of taking urgent action to stimulate our economy.

Let us say to the EU that we are going to delay the agency workers directive, making it clear to the institution that it will have to learn to live with that and that we will not accept an infraction procedure. Let us make it clear, during the current negotiations on the budget, that we intend to disapply, for instance, the working time directive, which was mentioned earlier, until we get this economy out of recession.

The European Union would complain, but, if the evidence of the examples I have cited is anything to go by, it would probably take it at least three years to get around to doing anything about it. Such a move might do something else, too. People keep saying, “These European politicians have no intention of having a treaty; they just won’t negotiate with us, so we have to give up,” but if we unilaterally did those things we would suddenly find that there was an appetite for a long-term solution to such issues. It would be a catalyst to get negotiations moving.

[Bob Stewart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

I am sorry, but I have almost finished, and I do not want to eat into other people’s time.

Negotiators in the Foreign Office would probably wince at the idea of adopting such a stance, but it is the only way we can cut that Gordian knot, sort out the EU and get our economy moving again, and I very much hope that the Minister takes those comments on board.