Brexit: Trade in Food

Debate between George Eustice and James Gray

Thursday 14th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

Just to be facetious, Minister, does that mean you are going to re-establish deficiency payments? Do not forget that deficiency payments were coupled with that.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Two points. First, interventions must be quite short. Secondly, I am sorry to pull the hon. Gentleman up again, but it is an absolute rule in this place that hon. Members must refer to one another as “the hon. Member”, “him”, “the Minister”, “she” and so on. Hon. Members may not refer to the Minister as “you”, because whenever you use the word “you”, you are referring to me. Please make an absolute habit of using only the third person.

[George Eustice]

I am interested in history, but I am not necessarily interested in implementing all historical policies. To extend the history lesson, there was also a view in the 1960s that we should not have subsidies but we should have tariffs. Obviously, we have moved some way since then.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In a trade negotiation we are talking about food standards, not just food safety. Some people misleadingly try to divert the debate, but it is about food standards, and issues such as animal welfare and the approach taken to farm husbandry are integral to those standards. We should not be shy about saying so.

A number of hon. Members mentioned IT systems. We—in the European Union—currently use the trade control and expert system, but we are doing a detailed piece of work to build a replacement system, should that be needed, and that work is well advanced. My hon. Friend asks in his Committee’s report for the Government to set out clarity about the future of the agriculture Bill. I am aware that this week the Secretary of State appeared before my hon. Friend’s Committee, where he was given that reassurance. The report also raised the potential impacts of tariffs on food prices. Again, as with the sectoral impacts, the Government are looking at this area, but we are not in a position to publish details. However, I recommend those hon. Members interested to look at work done by, for instance, the Resolution Foundation, which identified the fact that the impact on domestic food prices would be quite marginal, even under a most favoured nation scenario.

We have had a comprehensive debate covering a wide range of issues. I welcome the Committee’s interest and it bringing its report to the House for debate.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

The question is, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Brexit: Trade in Food, HC 348, and the Government response—

Equine Slaughterhouses (CCTV)

Debate between George Eustice and James Gray

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

No; the number would be far higher than that. I will have to write to the hon. Lady to confirm the figures, but the figure of 61 is for only one of the slaughterhouses—the one in Lincolnshire.

[Mr James Gray]

The Minister mentioned that in the past 12 months only 32 horses were killed in abattoirs with no CCTV; is he aware of any reason to presume that those 32 were killed under anything other than 100% humane circumstances?

[George Eustice]

The feedback we have had from the Food Standards Agency’s official veterinarians and reports is that it has not encountered any particular problems or concerns about the welfare of horses at slaughter. We should also note that the number of horses slaughtered at abattoirs in the UK has been in steady decline since 2012, when 8,426 horses were slaughtered. That fell to 5,000 by 2013, and in this past year it is down to just 3,280. That partly reflects a changing view among owners about the end-of-life choices that they have for their horses. It also reflects, as several hon. Members have said, how people are increasingly choosing to have their horses euthanised.

I want to talk about the meat of this debate, which is CCTV. As many hon. Members have said today, CCTV can and does play a useful role. Last year, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee published an interesting report that detailed the positive benefits of CCTV to slaughterhouse operators and those monitoring and verifying compliance with welfare standards. The benefits go much wider than any deterrent effect, and include, for instance, more accurate ante-mortem inspection in the lairage—for example, sheep often mask lameness if stressed when a stockman or vet is present, but behave normally under remote observation.

Another benefit is that CCTV can be a valuable training tool for operatives to encourage sensitive and sympathetic behaviour towards animals, and it can enable the spotting of any bad practices that could result in incidents or near misses. It can also allow the observation of activities in small or confined spaces that it would otherwise be difficult for the official veterinarian to observe. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals briefing for the debate also illustrates, it can be of use to operators and audit schemes in providing assurance that good practice and legal requirements are followed.

The Government understand the desire for the use of CCTV in all slaughterhouses, although we are yet to be convinced that it should be a mandatory requirement. I do, though, understand the calls for the Government to go further by introducing legislation to require slaughterhouses to have CCTV installed, and that official veterinarians should have unfettered access to CCTV footage. As I have made clear previously, the Government have never ruled out further action, and we keep the matter under review. I shall ensure that my noble Friend Lord Gardiner, who now has responsibility for the relevant part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs portfolio, is made aware of the points made today. We will, of course, consider them all carefully.

It is important to highlight one other important point about CCTV made by the FAWC, which is that it is at its most powerful when used as a tool for food business operators to manage their operations and staff and to help with training. There is one area of caution here: CCTV cannot be a substitute for responsible food business operators, and nor can it replace the role of official veterinarians. If it is used, it is preferable that it is used because food business operators really want it and want to use it to improve the management of their operation. In considering legislation, we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently change the culture and thereby lose out on all the benefits from CCTV highlighted by the FAWC. It is for that reason that the Government have encouraged the voluntary take-up of CCTV in slaughterhouses, and will continue to do so.

It might help if I clarify the current situation concerning CCTV in slaughterhouses generally. The latest FSA survey figures show that in Great Britain 92% of cattle, 96% of pig, 88% of sheep and 99% of poultry throughput is currently from premises with CCTV. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, the number of slaughterhouses with CCTV installed has been at the same level for the past couple of years. The numbers of high-throughput slaughterhouses with CCTV reflects the fact that, although the installation of CCTV in slaughterhouses is currently voluntary, it is also a requirement of many retailers and food assurance schemes. I acknowledge that many of the medium and smaller slaughterhouses have not yet installed CCTV. Many operators who have installed CCTV say that it is a positive training tool, so we would like to consider the issue to ensure that we get greater uptake of CCTV installation.

I shall briefly address some of the issues mentioned by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd talked about EU law. She is right that the initial intention of the great repeal Bill is that existing EU regulations will be put on to a UK legal basis, but I should point out that there is currently nothing in EU law that would prevent us from legislating to introduce mandatory CCTV if we so wished. This also relates to a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon). I do not intend to blame the EU and say that we cannot do it because it is not required; it is not required under EU law, but there is nothing in EU law that would prohibit it.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd also mentioned the cost. I have said in previous debates that the cost is indeed modest. She said that it can be under £1,000, and it can be for single cameras, as I have pointed out previously. However, when the FAWC looked into the cost, it estimated that for most abattoirs the cost of installing CCTV in the areas that people would want covered, which would require several cameras and additional monitoring systems, would be £3,000 to £10,000. As I have said previously and will say again, though, that is a relatively modest cost.

[Mr James Gray]

Does the Minister accept that there is a risk that the number of abattoirs killing horses and the number of horses killed in abattoirs might well decline further if CCTV is made compulsory? Many abattoir owners will simply say, “Why bother with horses?”, because they are a huge hassle anyhow and the carcass value is very low. Is there not at least a risk that the small number of abattoirs will become smaller?

[George Eustice]

There is another, wider point. This debate is focused specifically on CCTV at the point of horses’ slaughter, but all five of the slaughterhouses that are licensed to slaughter horses also slaughter other animals. The reality is that, were anybody to consider measures on CCTV, I am not sure there would be a specific reason to single out those abattoirs licensed for horses. I think that if someone was going to install CCTV, they would take a broader view, across all species, because the principles involved are broadly the same for each species.

The final point that I will make on the speech of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd relates to her claim that in the case of horse abattoirs there is not retail pressure. I think she is missing a point here, as all five abattoirs also slaughter other animals—other farm livestock. That is probably why three of the five already have CCTV.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has been a long-standing campaigner on a wide range of animal welfare issues. He made a separate legislative point, saying that if there is not time for primary legislation to address this issue, perhaps the Government should give a fair wind to a private Member’s Bill. Obviously, private Member’s Bills are an issue for the House and for private Members; it is open to anyone at any time to bring one forward. However, I am not sure that we would need primary legislation if we decided to address this issue. Potentially it could be dealt with under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which has quite wide provisions to deal with these types of things. Nevertheless, I take on board his point, and if any Back Bencher wanted to introduce such legislation, they could obviously do so.

Rural Payments Agency: Basic Payment Scheme

Debate between George Eustice and James Gray

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I will begin by reminding the Opposition of their own record on the Rural Payments Agency. Let us not forget that in 2005, the system they introduced led to £600 million of disallowance for this country. Payments were regularly more than a year late—hardly any farmers ever received their payments on time. It took a Conservative-led Government coming to power in 2010 to sort it out.

The hon. Lady asks whether everything will have to be resubmitted on paper. As I made clear in my opening statement, for those farmers who have managed to enter their mapping details, the information has been recorded; they will not need to start again. She says that we have always maintained that the new CAP is too complex to be processed on paper alone and needs a computer. That remains the position. As I said in my opening statement, that is why we will still use the core of the system to process the data. We have, for example, coefficients on the areas farmers have of broad beans, leguminous vegetables, hedges and so on. It is complex, and that is why we are not removing a digital approach, but simply having RPA officers enter the information on behalf of the farmer. This is not a paper-only system; it is a paper-assisted system.

The hon. Lady said that Mr Grimshaw, the chief executive of the RPA, had said that he could not give guarantees about the payment window. Having worked with Mr Grimshaw for 18 months, I can say that he is cautious and he never gives guarantees. In all the time I have known him he has never said anything other than that we will make our payments within the payment window. In the past couple of years well over 95% of farmers have been paid on the first day of banking and paid early. I am confident, as I said, that once we have the information in and it has been processed, we will have a system in place that can deal with it.

The hon. Lady mentioned contingency plans. We have adapted our plans and acted to ensure that farmers can get their applications in time this year. That is the responsible thing to do. It would have been wrong to abandon the system and prematurely abandon attempts to sort out the portal, particularly the part that deals with land mapping. We have acted in time to ensure that farmers can get their applications in place, and the steps that we have taken have been welcomed by the farming industry.

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

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who carried out fantastic work in turning around the mess that he inherited in the Department and sorting this out. Will my hon. Friend help me with one detail? The mapping that we are talking about is often very detailed—an electric fence here, a bit of undergrowth there. Would it be possible to pay farmers on account as partial payment this year, with the amounts being adjusted in subsequent years’ payments?

[George Eustice]

Provided an application is received by the deadline, there is provision in the EU regulations for it to be amended for a period of weeks after that. My hon. Friend’s suggestion of a payment on account while an application has not been received would not fit within the EU regulations, but we have made progress in getting that deadline extended to 15 June, and I have asked the RPA to take a sympathetic view towards farmers who are struggling to get their application in and who may want to amend those details after their form has been submitted.