Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Debate between George Eustice and Julian Sturdy

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

This instrument makes amendments to domestic legislation and retained direct EU legislation that would otherwise not be operable after our exit from the European Union. It makes only those changes required to ensure a smooth exit from the European Union and does not change the definition or compositional requirements of fertilisers.

Fertilisers are essential yearly inputs for the UK agricultural, horticultural and amenity sectors. The UK is a net importer of fertiliser products, with only domestic production of potash, polyhalite, ammonium nitrate and lime contributing to the UK’s total fertiliser requirement. The legislation on fertilisers concerns the manufacturing and marketing of products. It provides for the definition, composition, labelling and packaging requirements for specific categories of fertilisers that are set out in lists. This legislation does not address the application or use of fertilisers. Such issues tend to be dealt with through separate provisions in measures such as the nitrates directive.

In 1975, the EU created its first set of legislation relating to fertilisers. However, the wide disparity in existing fertiliser rules between member states, and the bulky nature of these materials restricting cross-border trade, meant that it was not suitable to fully harmonise rules on all fertilisers throughout the EU. Instead, fertiliser rules were partially harmonised to begin to remove technical barriers to trade within the EU. The UK has therefore kept its existing domestic framework alongside the EU framework. The EU regulation sets out the requirements for so-called EC fertilisers, or previously EEC fertilisers, which can be sold freely across the European Union. Manufacturers can choose which framework to market their products under. This partial harmonisation remains in place today.

The current domestic framework for any material described as a fertiliser is the Fertiliser Regulations 1991. In the EU, the current framework is the EU regulation EC 2003/2003, which applies only to fertilisers labelled “EC fertiliser”. It was implemented in UK law by the EC Fertilisers Regulations 2006. In addition, ammonium nitrate fertilisers are controlled through safety regulations that apply to all ammonium nitrate in Great Britain.

This statutory instrument amends domestic legislation that is out of date and addresses the failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, along with other deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Part 2 of the instrument amends out of date references in the domestic legislation. For example, it omits references to “EC fertilisers” and “EEC fertilisers” to ensure clarity for users of the legislation.

In the case of EU legislation, part 3 of this instrument amends retained EU law to ensure that it will operate effectively after exit day. For example, references to member states and the Commission are amended to refer instead to UK authorities. A requirement on the language to be used on labels is also amended. It replicates the EU framework in UK law, replacing the “EC fertiliser” label with a new equivalent “UK fertiliser” label. The requirements will otherwise remain the same. The instrument also amends the EU framework to include a provision that preserves the ability of relevant bodies in the UK to continue to be able to take certain actions such as prescribing how specified fertilisers should be identified. Part 4 amends domestic legislation as a result of exit, ensuring continuity of supply by recognising the EC fertilisers label for a two-year transitional period after exit day. This will minimise burdens on businesses and authorities and enable suppliers to use up existing stocks, both of fertilisers and packaging. The amendments in the statutory instrument do not change the definition, compositional requirements, or labelling or packaging rules for fertilisers, whether they are marketed under the existing domestic framework—the 1991 regulations—or the EU framework.

Ammonium nitrate fertilisers are additionally covered by domestic safety regulations, since they can be misused as improvised explosives and pose safety risks if mishandled in manufacture, transport or storage. It is worth noting that part 4 of the instrument also amends the regulations surrounding ammonium nitrate fertilisers with high nitrogen content in Great Britain, to treat imports from EU member states the same as imports from other third countries in line with World Trade Organisation obligations.

Under the GB ammonium nitrate regulations, the rules for imports from the EU are different from those for imports from outside the EU. In the light of WTO rules, it would not be possible to retain these differences, so the instrument amends some aspects of the ammonium nitrate regulations, in particular the detonation resistance tests, to apply the more stringent of the two regimes to all imports after the end of the two-year transition period and to uphold current safety standards.

The definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

This is a very important issue for the fertiliser industry. Could the Minister clarify whether this provision would give the opportunity to Ministers and the Department to charge fees to cover the costs of tests needed for official control measures?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why the regulations were referred by the sifting Committee for debate. There is already a power in the existing regulations for authorities to make charges for that testing. All we sought to do in drafting was retain that ability. Broadly speaking, the testing we do here in the UK is run by the Health and Safety Executive at our facility in Buxton and it tends to be a commercial choice for the fertiliser companies whether to use that or to use an alternative at their own cost. There is not really a cost recovery mechanism that is deployed beyond that; it is simply based on research done by the companies. We have clarified and made a change to the drafting of the regulation to be clear that we simply seek to retain the existing abilities to charge rather than to create new ones.

Continuity of supply is ensured by a transitional period for imports from the EU, which provides 99% of imported ammonium nitrate to the UK. That allows the continuation of current rules on the time limit for detonation resistance tests and the ability to recognise EU laboratory test certificates. These arrangements give manufacturers time to prepare for compliance with the import rules post exit and reduce any burdens on UK laboratories immediately after exit.

The definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere. We have taken a view on that regarding when the quantity of material manufactured without alteration of composition or characteristics is longer than 92 days. We will therefore retain the EU definition of “batch”.

The instrument was previously presented to the sifting Committee on 1 November 2018 as one that should be subject to the negative procedure. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), the sifting Committee did not agree. It considered that the effect of one regulation was to allow Ministers to charge fees. In addition, it considered that the instrument conferred powers to legislate. It therefore recommended that this instrument be debated in Parliament. The instrument has been amended since it was presented to the sifting Committee to reflect certain recommendations in the Committee’s report. For example, the provisions that the Committee considered to confer powers to legislate have been redrafted to make it clear that they do not contain new legislative functions.

In general, fertiliser policy, as with other agriculture policy, is devolved. The devolved Administrations were closely engaged in developing these regulations, which apply to the same geographical area as the original legislation that they amend. All Administrations have agreed to maintain a single common framework for fertilisers labelled as UK fertilisers, while continuing their own domestic framework. That will make the marketing of fertilisers much clearer for industry, and is a good example of how well the four Administrations work together towards a common goal.

The instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards, with no significant impacts or new administrative or economic burdens on business or other stakeholders. Although there was no statutory requirement to consult on the instrument, officials have held discussions with key stakeholders, including the fertiliser manufacturers’ representative body, which is the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and the farmers’ representative body—obviously, the National Farmers Union. Their main concerns have been addressed by allowing for a transitional period for existing rules and compliance with the amended rules.

In conclusion, the changes to the rules on ammonium nitrate have been developed in conjunction with the HSE and the Home Office, to ensure that safety and security elements are maintained. This package of measures is essential to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively in the UK once we leave the EU. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I now have even more points to try to address, and I will do so as comprehensively as I can.

First, I turn to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). He raised a general point about the use of fertilisers, which is that we should be trying to encourage more sustainability, perhaps through the use of organic fertilisers. He will be aware from the discussions we have had in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee that we are looking, in clause 1, to be able to incentivise more environmentally sustainable farming, which could include, for instance, supporting the use of organic farmyard manures more than manufactured fertilisers. He should also recognise that increases in fuel costs have anyway had a major knock-on impact on the cost of fertilisers in recent decades, such that in the past 30 years or so fertiliser use in the UK has fallen by about 40% already. He pointed out that at the moment we import most of our ammonium nitrate, predominantly from the European Union; there is one manufacturer of ammonium nitrate here in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on security—in particular, whether there is a risk that the material will get into the hands of terrorists. As I pointed out, we have gone for the more stringent detonating test regime, meaning that any consignment imported to the UK, whether from the European Union or a third country, would have to have had that detonation test within the previous 60 days. We are applying the more stringent set of rules that we have for third countries to all countries.

On the general issue of security, I also point out that in 2006 a fertiliser industry assurance scheme was set up between the Government and the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and it has since successfully created and monitored voluntary standards in the industry supply chain to ensure that ammonium nitrate fertiliser can be traced and does not end up in the wrong hands.

Although we have made changes to the GB regime for detonation testing and the ammonium nitrate regime, as I said in my opening comments Northern Ireland has its own specific rules in this area. The ammonium nitrate safety regulations apply to Great Britain. Owing to the past misuse of ammonium nitrate in making improvised explosive devices, Northern Ireland has its own controls under the Control of Explosives Precursors etc. Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 and, under existing rules, the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Those prevent any import, storage or use of ammonium nitrate fertilisers without a tier 1 explosives precursor licence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland is more thorough still, given the tragic history of which we are all aware.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we have not conducted an impact assessment. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) pointed out, that is because we are not seeking to make any substantive change to policy—indeed, the stated aim of all these EU exit SIs is, as far as we are able, to maintain the status quo from day one after we leave the European Union, to ensure that we have an operable law book. He also made a specific point about the technical note on page 5, which he claimed he could not download. I am reliably informed that, since he mentioned that, my officials have been online to double-check and successfully downloaded it. Perhaps the issue had more to do with the hon. Gentleman’s IT than with our system; nevertheless, I thank him for raising that so that we could at least double-check.

The hon. Gentleman also raised an important point about storage: what happens if material is stored beyond the two-year transition? We arrived at the two-year transition period for sale having consulted the industry. The industry generally thought it an appropriate period both to be able to market its existing stocks and to give it plenty of time to use up any residual fertiliser packaging and order new packaging.

[Julian Sturdy]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest. Would what the Minister has said apply to on-farm stock as well?

[George Eustice]

No. I was about to come to precisely that point, which was also made by the shadow Minister. If during the two-year transition period a farmer has bought products labelled under the previous EU regulations, he can then store them on farm. As I pointed out at the beginning, these are marketing regulations—pertaining to the sale of product, not storage or use after sale.

Finally, the hon. Members for Stroud and for Edinburgh North and Leith asked about the specific issue of tariffs on fertilisers. This is an issue that the Government are currently considering. As hon. Members may be aware, while farming representative groups such as the NFU would like to retain tariffs on some agricultural commodities, they are equally keen to have tariff rate suspensions on some fertiliser products. We are giving that consideration. It is important to note, however, that if we were to set a unilateral autonomous tariff rate quota or suspend tariffs on a unilateral basis, we would have to offer the same terms to all countries in the world, probably including Russia, notwithstanding the approach the European Union is currently taking.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Julian Sturdy

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

British food and farming is worth more than £100 billion a year to our economy and employs one in eight workers in Great Britain. That is why the Government are committed to working with industry to develop a long-term plan to buy more, sell more and grow more British food. The plan will set out how British food and farming can become a world leader that is innovative, competitive, profitable and resilient, and we will work on that in the months ahead.

[Julian Sturdy]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest.

Population growth predictions estimate that we will need to produce 60% more food by 2050, but British crop yields have plateaued over recent years and the agrichemical toolbox available to farmers has been ever reducing. Will the Minister look seriously at offering more support for research and innovation that is focused on increasing yields and on the production challenges that farmers face today?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Following large growth immediately after the war, yields have plateaued in recent decades. DEFRA is spending about £1.75 million a year on research into crops, and our research councils, through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, have a number of programmes in this area. In particular, Rothamsted has a major programme called “20:20 Wheat”, which aims to get yields of wheat to 20 tonnes per hectare in the next 20 years.

Control of Horses Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Julian Sturdy

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) for tabling these amendments and asking some important questions about the Bill.

Amendment 1 seeks to add ponies and jennets to the definition of a horse covered by the Bill and, in turn, to the provisions on horses in the Animals Act 1971. It may be helpful quickly to explain how the provisions in the Control of Horses Bill amend the Animals Act 1971. The Bill carves out special arrangements in the 1971 Act for stray and fly-grazing horses and other equidae. Its leaves the measures in the 1971 Act as they apply to other livestock unchanged. The provisions cover a range of equidae. As well as horses, the Bill’s provisions apply to asses, mules and hinnies. These equidae need special mention because, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) pointed out, they are not horses. Each is a different species. Horses are of the equus ferus caballus, and ponies are of the same species, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. It might also be worth clarifying that the legal definition of a donkey is an ass, so they are also covered.

A pony is just a small horse and does not need to be specified, so they are already covered. Similarly, a jennet is a small breed of horse. Thus neither ponies nor jennets need to included in the definition of horse.

For completeness, I should say that I asked a number of questions about the definitions when scrutinising this Bill with officials, and I therefore point out that a mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, and a hinny is the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey. That is made clear in the legislation.

I understand the reasoning behind amendments 2 and 3. My right hon. Friend just wants to make it clear that there is a proper process for contacting the owners of a horse, where this is known. Unfortunately, it is not always easy for a person or local authority detaining a horse to identify the owner and then serve them with a notice of detention. Many fly-grazed horses cannot be identified through microchipping, as required by law, and even when a horse can be properly identified, the person detaining it might not be able to access its identification data.

We considered these points and decided that the police should remain the central point of contact for reporting detained or missing horses, and that notice of detention should be registered with the police in any case, even when the person detaining the horse is able to notify the horse’s owner. Under the existing provisions in the Animals Act 1971, the police have systems in place for registering this kind of information, which is often shared with local authorities. Horse owners should therefore contact the police immediately if they are concerned that their horse might have been detained.

The Bill leaves it open to the person detaining a fly-grazing horse to contact the owner directly, if the owner is known to him, but I believe that it would be a backward step to prescribe what form such action should take, such as sending a letter by first-class post, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire suggests. The person might know which caravan the owner lived in, for example, and could go and knock on their door and talk to them. Alternatively, they might know the owner’s e-mail address. It would be wrong to be prescriptive in this regard.

I asked questions about this again when we were considering the Bill, and I want to reassure my right hon. Friend. Clause 3(2) of the Bill states:

“The right to detain the horse ceases at the end of the period of 24 hours”,

and goes on to say that the person detaining the horse must notify the police and the owner, if they know who that is. If the Bill had required notification of the police or the owner, but not both, he might have a stronger case for requiring more clarity. I believe that the requirement to notify both, and to contact the police in any event, will provide sufficient clarity. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), pointed out, we are keen to get the Bill through and it would be wrong to introduce measures that were inconsistent with the 1971 Act. I therefore hope that, in the light of these clarifications, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak briefly to amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I must also put on record my thanks for his support for the Bill. On amendment 1, the Minister has already set out how a horse is defined for the purposes of the Bill. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), has set out his position on that as well, and I do not need to say more on that.

I should like to speak briefly to amendments 2 and 3. I completely understand the very sensible intentions behind the amendments, but I believe that the police must remain the central point of contact, as the Minister has said. It is also clear that there has to be flexibility in these circumstances. First-class post might be the most appropriate way of notifying an owner in certain circumstances, but it is essential to have flexibility on that decision, and not to specify in statute exactly what should be done. The Minister talked about the time involved, and using first-class post might delay the notification so that it did not arrive within the required four clear days.

I fear that the introduction of detailed specifications of how notifications should be served could unnecessarily delay what should be an immediate process relating to animal welfare. Such delay must be avoided in the interests of all parties involved, not least the fly-grazed horses, in the light of the welfare issues involved. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will not press his amendment to a vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Julian Sturdy

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I have answered that question several times. We will publish the report once the quality assurance process concludes. The hon. Lady highlights benefit changes, but I simply point out that 92% of benefits are now processed on time, which is six percentage points higher than it was in 2009. This Government have done a lot to address people’s problems with the cost of living. We have taken 2.4 million people out of tax altogether, increased the basic state pension by 2.5% and frozen planned fuel duty rises, which means petrol is now 13% cheaper than it would have been.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T2. With parts of the country experiencing the wettest January since records began, and sadly no let-up in sight at the moment, will the Minister clarify whether resources from the farming and forestry improvement scheme can be used to fund vital ditch-clearing and watercourse maintenance, which is absolutely essential for rural communities if they are to tackle flooding?

Farmland Bird Populations

Debate between George Eustice and Julian Sturdy

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) on securing this debate. He is passionate about bird life and has been a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for some 50 years, which shows real dedication. I grew up around wildlife on a farm. In Cornwall, we used to get a lot of lapwings, because they often overwintered there. Like him, I have a passion for birds and wildlife, and I want to see the common agricultural policy promoting them.

My right hon. Friend highlighted that the trend in recent decades has been bleak. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs measures how birds fare through the farmland bird index, which is published every year as part of its biodiversity indicator suite. The index looks at 19 widespread species that feed in open farmland during the breeding season, and includes species such as lapwing, grey partridge, greenfinch, wood pigeon, skylark, corn bunting and yellowhammers. The evidence shows that the main decline in the index was from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. While the decline has continued, it has slowed since then.

It should be noted that not all farmland bird species have followed the overall trend. While grey partridge, turtle dove, tree sparrow and corn bunting are among those declining, wood pigeon, jackdaw, goldfinch and stock dove have all shown substantial increases. The wood pigeon, for example, has benefited from the increased availability of food as a result of cropping patterns switching to more oilseed rape, as many farmers could tell us.

The causes for the overall decline are complex and varied, but it is clear that the sharpest rate in decline coincided with major changes in agricultural land management and intensification. First, the switch from spring to autumn sowing of many cereal crops led to a loss of overwinter stubble fields, which has had a major impact on food sources. Secondly, the increased use of agri-chemicals, particularly during the 1970s, played an important part as well. Thirdly, the loss of field margins and hedgerows meant that farmland birds lost not only valuable sources of seed and insect food, particularly over the winter, but suitable nesting habitat. Recently, other natural factors have had an impact, particularly the weather. Many species have been vulnerable to the recent wet summers and cold winters. There is also disease; we know, for example, that trichomonosis has affected the greenfinch.

For some ground-nesting species such as lapwing, and game birds such as grey partridge, we have to acknowledge that predation by foxes and other predators has been a factor. The impact of predation varies between species. For farmland songbirds, for instance, there is little evidence of an effect, perhaps because they often have more than one brood and will re-nest after predation, and are therefore better able to withstand its effects. There is some evidence that predation is likely to have a greater impact on bird populations where habitat is in poor condition, perhaps because it has been degraded through overgrazing; nests may be more exposed and suffer higher loss rates to predators.

Having outlined the causes of the decline and the nature of the problem, I want to say something about what we hope to do, and the possible solutions. Our agri-environment schemes are the principal means of improving habitat for farmland birds in England; they provide funds for farmers to manage the cropped environment and provide additional habitat and food on their farms for farmland birds and other wildlife. Agri-environment measures that benefit birds include providing overwintered stubble, so that there is seed in winter, and wild bird seed mixtures in spring and summer, and the sympathetic management of hedgerows. Today there are about 50,000 farmers in England in agri-environment schemes, representing about 70% of available farmland. As part of the rural development programme for England, we spend about £400 million a year on those schemes.

As I said earlier, although we have stemmed the rate of decline and have turned a corner with respect to some species, we need overall to ask why, having spent a great deal of money in recent years on such countryside stewardship schemes, we have not yet reversed the decline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), other hon. Members present, and I would want.

The first thing to consider is management options under the stewardship schemes. We would certainly have liked better uptake of management options beneficial to farmland birds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip highlighted the weaknesses of the entry-level stewardship scheme in particular. We have looked at ways of encouraging greater uptake of those management options to benefit farmland birds.

In 2013, as a result of the review, we introduced into the schemes specific measures that enable farmers to provide supplementary feeding for birds in winter, to begin to address what is known as the hungry gap between midwinter and early spring, when seed food is depleted and before other food sources become available. That simple measure involves providing seeds on the ground or in hoppers to supplement the seed in stubble and wild bird seed crops. Another new measure that we introduced in 2013 involved leaving the last cut ryegrass silage unharvested, to allow grass to set seed and provide a seed source over winter.

A study by Baker and others published in 2012 for the British Trust for Ornithology showed that there is strong evidence that the provision of winter food resources produces positive effects in relation to the population growth of a number of species. The study results underline the importance of getting farmers to choose those targeted measures that we have already introduced, to deliver the outcomes we need.

Natural England, which administers environmental stewardship, has worked with many conservation bodies to develop farmland bird packages, setting out minimum requirements for the options by which farmers can provide nesting habitat, invertebrate chick food and adult seed food. They have been targeted at areas in England known to hold important populations of farmland birds and have been promoted by Natural England and the RSPB.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

The Minister makes a strong argument for the way modern farming can live in harmony with wildlife, and for how environmental schemes can improve bird numbers. All those present for the debate will agree about that. However, he has not touched on habitat destruction through uncontrolled planning and flooding. Is he in conversations with any of his ministerial colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government about whether that aspect of the matter can be tightened up?

[George Eustice]

It is probably a topic for a separate debate, but my hon. Friend will know that we are considering approaches such as biodiversity offsetting; when planning permission is granted and a habitat is damaged, there would be a process enabling local authorities to put things right somewhere else. There is potential to get that moving and to try to help habitats damaged by development.

Natural England has worked with the RSPB and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust to try to improve the working of the ELS scheme. The Campaign for the Farmed Environment has also done a lot to promote good practice. It is a voluntary industry-led initiative, where key industry partners work with environmental groups to encourage farmers to undertake voluntary environmental management. It is funded jointly by the industry and DEFRA, which has committed about £700,000 for this year and next to support its activities. Currently the campaign is promoting skylark and lapwing plots, wild bird seed mix strips, unsprayed overwinter stubbles and winter feeding.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip mentioned the common agricultural policy. As he said, we have gone to a 12% modulation rate. We have also taken the decision to increase the percentage of the pillar two budget spent on agri-environment schemes from 83% to 87%, so increasing the total amount being spent. Between now and 2020 we shall spend well over £3 billion on agri-environment schemes, and I confirm that we intend to review the position in 2016, with a view to moving to a full 15% modulation, subject to sufficient demand for the schemes and to concluding an analysis of the competitiveness of British agriculture.

My right hon. Friend highlighted some of the shortcomings of the ELS, and as he said, we plan for a new environmental land management scheme to replace it. The new scheme will build on the acknowledged successes of the environmental stewardship scheme in a positive way: it will be more targeted and focused. The new proposed mid-tier will identify areas of particular priorities for given objectives and incentivise the right options; we call that the directed option choice.

Biodiversity is among the things that I want to promote as we design NELMS. I want to make sure we have those directed options, so that there must be certain options, from a particular list, that will prioritise the recovery of farmland birds. I want us to look at that closely as we develop the approach. The directed option choice will enable us to encourage farmers to maximise the environmental outcomes on their land, in response to the agreed environmental priorities in their area, rather than simply seeking the lowest-cost or most convenient options. In addition, we shall adopt a landscape-scale approach to establishing NELMS. I hope that that will result in some critical mass and wildlife corridors, and a concentrated improvement in habitats to sustain the recovery of certain bird species.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, I want to reverse the decline in bird populations, and I do not believe that that is incompatible with continued farming. Many of the measures that can help farmland birds are entirely compatible with modern farming practices. I recently had a meeting with the RSPB, and we discussed some of the good work that they are doing at Hope farm in Cambridgeshire. I hope to visit in the spring; this very morning, my office has been trying to find a date for that.

The number of farmland birds at Hope farm has doubled since 2000, mainly because of land management undertaken through environmental stewardship. A particular success has been the fourfold increase in skylark numbers, which has been achieved simply through skylark plots. The RSPB representatives described to me how during the drilling of a cereal crop the drill is shut off periodically to produce the skylark plots. That is a simple management measure, which does not really affect the profitability of the farm, but has a huge effect on the skylark population. I look forward to my meeting with the RSPB and learning more about that.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend again on obtaining the debate, and reassure him that we shall prioritise biodiversity as we design the new environmental land management scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Julian Sturdy

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T2. Following the new year celebrations, farmers in my constituency have voiced their concerns about the dangers of Chinese lanterns not only to the welfare of their livestock, but to property and, ultimately, their livelihoods. Following bans in Germany, Spain, Australia and much of south America, is it not time to consider banning these flying death-traps?

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

We share some of the public’s concerns about the potential risks posed by sky lanterns. However, we commissioned an independent study, which was published in May last year, and it concluded that the overall impact of sky lanterns on animal welfare was quite low. We are therefore focusing our efforts on ensuring that people are aware of the risks and trying to improve voluntary action to deal with the problem.