Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have put in place a number of measures to help households, particularly with the sharp increase in energy costs that they face. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have set those out previously. In addition, we have other schemes such as the holiday activity programme to support those suffering from food insecurity and additional food costs, and we have given local authorities additional measures to help them with those struggling to afford food.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

With Putin’s murderous regime wreaking havoc on Ukraine and murdering innocent women and children, there is a direct impact on food and grain prices. Ukraine has stopped exports, as have many other countries. What will the Secretary of State do to protect grain supplies in this country? Secondly, what talks will he have with the retailers to ensure that we can share some of the pain of the costs, which pig and poultry just cannot stand? Thirdly, how are we going to create greater food security and grow more grain in this country, which we are in need of?

[George Eustice]

On my hon. Friend’s final point, we published a highly comprehensive analysis of our food security, including a focus on the production to supply ratio, which showed that we produce roughly three quarters of the food that we are able to grow and consume here. On his specific point, we were aware of the risk of these events in Ukraine and set up a dedicated group within DEFRA at the beginning of January to do contingency planning for the possible impacts on food. We do not import wheat from Ukraine, or only very small quantities; we are largely self-sufficient in wheat and we import the balance from Canada. However, we are looking at the cost of inputs, particularly for the livestock sector, such as poultry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady raises an important point that we can reduce food waste. A number of supermarkets are already engaged in programmes to support local food banks. The Government support the FareShare charity, which also helps to redistribute food and tries to prevent food waste in the way she sets out.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Further to that question, many large retailers are keeping their budget lines at a higher price than they need to while not raising the price of higher-priced food, so I think there is an argument that they could do more to lower the price of food. Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on FareShare, can he see the £5 million that I think it is due to get food directly from farms, processors and retailers straight out to the people who need it?

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

2nd reading
Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is the second that the Government are bringing forward concerning the welfare of animals, and its scope relates to the keeping of animals in Great Britain. We are a proud nation of animal lovers, and we have a strong record of being at the forefront of championing the best standards of care and protection for our animals, both at home and around the world. The UK was the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals as long ago as the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822. Since 2010, we have achieved a great deal. On farms, we introduced new regulations for minimum standards for meat chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, and introduced mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses. We have also modernised our licensing system for a range of activities such as dog breeding and pet sales, and banned the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens. Our 2019 manifesto outlined how we intend to go further. Earlier this year we published the “Action Plan for Animal Welfare”, laying out how we will ensure that animals, both domestically and internationally, are subject to the highest possible standards of welfare.

A week ago, the House gathered to pay tribute to Sir David Amess. Many hon. Members highlighted his tireless work for higher animal welfare during his 38 years in this House. We will feel his absence today. He typically sat a couple of rows behind me off my left shoulder, sometimes with helpful interventions and often with more challenging ones, but always with a sense of good will and that positive smile even when being challenging.

In particular, Sir David campaigned for many years on the issue of live animal exports. He also campaigned on primates kept as pets and on the puppy trade. I last met Sir David at an event organised by the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation at the Conservative party conference, where he expressed his delight at how many of these issues, many of which will be raised in today’s debate, had moved to the fore. We will obviously miss him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I thank Lorraine Platt for the work that she has done through the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation to campaign towards several of the measures that we are bringing forward in this Bill. I also take this opportunity to thank the Scottish and Welsh Governments for their contributions to the development of the Bill. Although the provisions in the Bill will not extend to Northern Ireland, I thank the Northern Irish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for their collaboration and valuable support in helping my Department with the development of these policies.

The Bill focuses on five key areas. First, the Government will take advantage of our departure from the European Union to ban the export of certain livestock and other animals for slaughter and fattening. That will apply to journeys beginning in or transiting through Great Britain to a third country. Many hon. Members have campaigned on this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). We have carefully considered the scientific and expert evidence and the responses to our recent public consultation in England and Wales.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I very much welcome the ban on the live export of animals for slaughter. However, I want to ensure that livestock and breeding stock can come in and out of the country without hindrance. Is the Secretary of State confident, as he brings in that ban, that we can keep breeding stock coming in?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why the Bill relates specifically to animals for fattening and slaughter; it does not include animals for breeding. The Government’s view is that exporting animals for slaughter and fattening is unnecessary; indeed, such journeys are unnecessarily stressful for the animals concerned. Those animals could be slaughtered or fattened domestically, and that could be carried out by means of a shorter or less stressful journey.

The Government’s recent consultation also covered a range of proposals to improve the domestic welfare in transport regime, and the Bill provides us with the power to introduce improvements by means of regulations at a later date. We recently published our response to the consultation, outlining how we will take forward these reforms, working alongside farming and animal welfare organisations. We will carry out further engagement with stakeholders before implementing any reforms, and we will work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to ensure, as far as possible, a consistent legislative approach across Great Britain.

Secondly, our departure from the EU also means that we are able to bring in measures to tackle the serious issue of puppy imports into Great Britain. The number of cats, dogs and ferrets brought into GB through non-commercial and commercial routes has increased significantly over the years. That has been accompanied by an increase in young puppies being illegally landed in the UK. For example, the number of dogs intercepted rose from 390 in 2019 to almost 1,300 in 2020. That problem has been highlighted by many hon. Members in recent years, not least by the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and by many other members of that Committee.

There is growing evidence that commercial importers currently abuse our non-commercial pet travel rules to bring in lots of puppies at once to maximise profit, and that the welfare of those puppies is frequently compromised. The Bill therefore reduces the number of pets that can be brought into the country for non-commercial reasons by a person who is coming into or returning to the country. The maximum number of pets will be reduced to five per motor vehicle on ferry and rail routes, and three per person where someone is arriving by air or as a foot passenger. That will deter traders from abusing the non-commercial pet travel rules to bring in puppies for onward sale.

We also have concerns that many of the puppies imported into Great Britain have been sourced from breeding facilities with low welfare standards, and that their welfare is being compromised during transport.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of small family farms in our agriculture system. A lot of the economic analysis done by the Government and companies such as AB Agri shows that some of those smaller family farms are technically the most proficient and often the most profitable, as they have attention to detail. The Government are going to be bringing forward more proposals to support new entrants to our farming industry so that we have a vibrant, profitable sector, with farms of all sizes.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The National Food Strategy has recommended that the Government must define the minimum standards we will accept in future free trade deals and a “mechanism for protecting them”. The report says that without that there is “serious peril” that tariff-free deals could not only “compromise” our own attempts to drive up these standards, but allow cheap imports, which would “undercut” our farmers. Given that the Trade and Agriculture Commission already made exactly that recommendation in its March report, almost five months ago, can the Secretary of State tell me when these core standards will be set out and whether that mechanism for defending them will be in place before the Australia deal is signed?

[George Eustice]

The Government are working on a sanitary and phytosanitary policy statement that will set out the UK’s farm-to-fork approach on these matters, the science of good farm husbandry and how that improves food safety standards. We also have some key things in our legislation, such as bans on the use of hormones in beef and of chlorinated washes. Those are in our legislation and will not change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

It is a different type of offence in that there is emotional stress on the owner of the pet, but there can also be stress and effects on the welfare of the animal. That is why, in the current sentencing guidelines, the courts can take account of an aggravated offence with emotional distress, and the maximum penalty could be as high as seven years. We have asked the pet theft taskforce to look at this issue more closely and assemble the evidence to consider whether anything further is required.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Pet theft is on the rise, partly because of the demand for pets through lockdown. When gangs steal a pet, they cause harm not only to the pet, but to the families who miss it. We still do not have the five-year sentencing for animal cruelty, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has been trying his best to get through. In the next Parliament, can we not only have that five-year sentencing for cruelty but link in dog theft to the legislation?

[George Eustice]

The legislation on increasing the maximum penalty for animal cruelty is nearing its completion. I have a high degree of confidence that we will be able to get it through before the end of the Session. Indeed, we will say more about that over the next day or so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

What preparations his Department is making prior to the implementation of checks on imports of (a) animal and germinal products and (b) live animals from the EU in July 2021.

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

We are already conducting some checks on live animals, with full documentary checks and physical checks being conducted at the premises of destination. We plan to introduce some documentary checks on products of animal origin next month and then begin some physical checks from July onwards, and also to introduce similar checks on plant products later this year. Recruitment of staff by the port health authorities is at an advanced stage.

[Neil Parish [V]]

On Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee heard from a series of our fish and meat exporters to the EU who are struggling with the paperwork system imposed by the EU and its border officials. One exporter in Brixham needed over 70 pages of paperwork for one consignment of fish. When we start making checks this summer, we could insist on 140 pages of paperwork for EU imports, if we wanted to. However, could we, in our mutual interest, negotiate with the EU a digital system to make it easier for our businesses both to export and to import?

[George Eustice]

Unlike the European Union, we have taken a pragmatic approach to phasing in border controls, so that we can protect business supply chains and UK consumers, but when we do start to introduce those export health certificates, they will be certificates that are of a similar form to those of the European Union, since they are derived from retained EU law. I understand the point my hon. Friend is making, but we should also remain conscious that the primary focus of these checks is to protect food standards and animal health. Over time, the European Union may diverge from British law or may suffer variable enforcement between member states, and the UK needs the ability to protect British consumers and to operate food safety surveillance of other EU member states.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Colleagues in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are looking at the specific issue around rules of origin, which does affect some sectors, but overall, flow at the border through the short straits has been good. More than 6,000 lorries per day are travelling. DFDS, which leads on fisheries distribution, now says that it is getting lorries to Boulogne within 24 hours. Goods are starting to flow, but unavoidably, as we leave both the customs union and the single market, there is of course some additional paperwork.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the work that he has put into getting the deal to work. We welcome the deal, but there are still lots of problems with people getting things through the border, and delays are reducing the value of fish especially. What compensation can be given to people, and what more can the Secretary of State do to get goods flowing through the borders—both at our end and, in particular, through French ports when there are problems at their customs?

[George Eustice]

Yesterday, we announced that we would offer one-to-one support for individual enterprises in the fishing sector that are struggling to get used to the new paperwork; that could be from HMRC or the Animal and Plant Health Agency. In addition, we work very closely with customs officials and Border Force officials in France to help improve the understanding at that level. We also announced a £23 million fund yesterday to help those fishing businesses that have struggled in these initial weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We will be using a range of tools to deliver on our manifesto commitment to protect food standards and animal welfare in all the trade agreements that we do, and we have three principal tools that we can use. First, we have the option to prohibit sales, as we already do, for instance, for chlorine-washed chicken and hormones in beef. Secondly, as my hon. Friend points out, we can use the sanitary and phytosanitary chapter, which is a feature of all trade agreements, to dictate the terms of access when it comes to food safety in particular. Thirdly, when it comes to issues such as animal welfare, we will use tariff policy to prevent unfair competition for our farmers.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on management of agricultural imports at UK borders after the transition period.

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

DEFRA is working with officials across government to ensure that the flow of agricultural imports at UK borders continues after the transition period. We will introduce a phased approach to import controls for EU countries, to give businesses impacted by covid-19 time to adjust, while maintaining biosecurity controls.

[Neil Parish]

As the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said in its report, covid-19 has showed that we need to get food through the borders very quickly. We have a just-in-time food system, so getting imports in after the transitional period is exceptionally necessary. I am also very concerned about exports. Imports are largely in our hands, but exports are largely in the hands of the French. In any agreement we get, we must ensure that we have the right veterinary certificates, enough vets to write them and a process that will be recognised and honoured when we try to get exports of lamb and beef into the continent, because there will be a real problem otherwise.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have been doing a lot of work on business readiness with the sector—in particular, with meat processors—to ensure that they understand what will be required of them. Whether or not there is a further agreement with the EU, meat processors will need export health certificates. We have been working with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to ensure that there is capacity in the veterinary profession to deliver those export health certificates, and we are also ensuring that those companies understand the customs procedures that they would need to go through.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Food insecurity is a great issue, especially with the covid virus. Evidence we are taking in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs shows that a lot of people are in need of good food. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the system of getting food straight from the farms to those who most need it, but can he extend it even more? I ask because after the pandemic and before the economy recovers properly people are going to need more and more food.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government have made available £16 million to partners such as FareShare to ensure that we can get food to thousands of food charities across the country to support those in need. In addition, we have been looking at other ways in which we can support those who are financially vulnerable at this difficult time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

9. When the Government plan to publish the national food strategy.

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

As my hon. Friend is aware, Henry Dimbleby is leading an independent review of the food system to develop recommendations to shape a national food strategy. The review was launched in June 2019. A vision for the food system is scheduled for publication in the spring of this year, and the review’s final recommendations will be published over the winter. The Government will then respond to those within six months.

[Neil Parish]

In these moments of great crisis when we need food, there is no doubt that home-produced food is more important than ever. I would really love it if the food strategy incorporates how we are going to produce more home-produced food. Further to the question from the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), I am looking forward to the Secretary of State supporting the amendment from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to maintain high standards on food imports. Can that all be incorporated into the food strategy?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Events such as those we are experiencing now remind everyone that a critical component of our food security is healthy and vibrant domestic production, which is why we have committed in the Agriculture Bill to review our food security every five years. That will include a review of the health of the food supply chain and food production in this country.

Flooding

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his new post; it is well deserved.

Flooding is going on and it comes very suddenly, so we will have to manage it in the future. Some rivers need to be slowed down, and for some we need to increase the flow as they get to the sea.

With Flood Re, there is a cut-off date of 2008. Many people who bought houses after 2008 cannot necessarily get insurance. It is time that we looked at that again, because Flood Re has worked but many people cannot actually get access to it.

[George Eustice]

I am conscious of the point that my hon. Friend makes, and indeed that was made to me by residents when I visited York with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) at the weekend. For houses built in recent years, we have known about potential flood risk, and that should have been factored in in the planning system. So it would be rather extraordinary for there to be modern-built houses where the risk is so high that they cannot get insurance.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, that is not a matter for this Bill, but our party’s manifesto makes a clear commitment to our maintaining standards as we approach new trade deals, and to our ensuring that we do not water down our standards or undermine our producers.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The Minister says that there will be complete continuity of the basic farm payment over the coming year. Does that include continuity of the three crop rule and all the regulation that goes with the present system? Farmers will need to know that. They have got used to the system, and so has the Rural Payments Agency, so we need to know whether the system will be exactly the same, or whether there will be some changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, under the financial settlement in the withdrawal agreement, we did not make a contribution to the next multi-annual financial framework, so the UK will not contribute to the EU budget from 2021 onwards, and will therefore not contribute to the budget that would fund this current year of BPS. We will fund it domestically, and that is why the direct payments regulation must be brought on to a UK regulatory footing.

[Neil Parish]

There is an argument that for many years the UK has actually contributed much more to the common agricultural policy than we have received from it. Can the Minister assure me that as we will not make those payments, we should save some money for the Exchequer?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank the House for the debate on this Bill, which is so vital for the agricultural sector across the UK. I recognise the frustrations that some Members might have had because of the need for the Bill in the first place, given that the Agriculture Bill is on its way. Let me reaffirm that this Bill makes no policy changes; it is about continuity. It is a small, technical Bill to ensure that the Government and devolved Administrations are able to pay direct payments to farmers for the 2020 scheme year. Our future intentions for agriculture in England have been laid out by the Government in our Agriculture Bill, which was introduced on 16 January. We know that farmers need stability, certainty and a smooth transition to our new system of public money for public goods, so we will not switch off direct payments overnight. That would be irresponsible. There will be a seven-year agricultural transition period, allowing a system of public money for public goods to be introduced gradually.

I acknowledge that the Bill is being passed according to a tight timescale. However, it is imperative that it and the necessary secondary legislation are in place and in force by exit day, which will be upon us at the end of this week. The withdrawal agreement will stop the CAP direct payments legislation applying in the UK for the 2020 scheme year. This was intended so that the UK would not have to pay into the EU’s next budget cycle, which funds the 2020 direct payment year.

[Neil Parish]

I am going to try once more to get an answer from the Minister. We will not be paying into the common agricultural policy money that comes back to us, but will we be paying the amount that we paid before, which contributed to the CAP across the rest of the European Union?

[George Eustice]

I am sorry that I was not able to address my hon. Friend’s point previously. We will not be contributing to the next multi-annual financial framework or the 2021 budget. Therefore, not only will we not be contributing and getting back money for our farmers—we will pay that ourselves—but we will not be paying into this scheme year for EU farmers, because we will not be contributing to that part of the budget.

I am pleased that the Bill is becoming law so that we can ensure that farmers in each and every part of the UK have the certainty they need as we leave the CAP, and embark on our new and ambitious programme. The Bill has received legislative consent motions from every part of the UK, including Northern Ireland, even though the new Administration formed only recently, and I concur with the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

We have had a good and comprehensive debate, with a number of excellent maiden speeches along the way.

Many Members talked about the future of agriculture policy after the implementation period. That is a matter for the Agriculture Bill, which was presented to the House last week and will be debated in due course. A number of hon. Members made reference to trade deals and the vital importance of maintaining our standards as we enter them. I agree with that, and our manifesto set out clearly the Government’s approach to maintaining standards as we negotiate future trade deals. These issues will be reflected in future trade mandates.

The Bill before us is about a very simple issue and covers one year only—namely, the year 2020. It is required as a consequence of the withdrawal agreement, because article 137 disapplied the direct payments regulation and the horizontal regulation. The reason it disapplied that particular regulation is down to a quirk of EU CAP funding, in that the basic payment scheme payments for 2020 are funded out of the 2021 budget year. The UK will not be part of the multi-annual financial framework from 2021. It will therefore not contribute and must fund the scheme domestically for this year. The Bill simply makes the common agricultural policy, as we have it today, operable for the current year.

Secondly, the Bill addresses the issues highlighted in the Bew review. It creates the powers necessary to change the financial ceilings to implement in full the recommendations of the Bew review, so that there will be an uplift in funding for Scotland and Wales to reflect their severely disadvantaged area status. The shadow Secretary of State asked whether that fund would be new money or whether farmers in England and Northern Ireland would have their funds top-sliced to pay for it. I can confirm that the uplift for Scotland and Wales will be paid for with new funds. There will therefore be no loss to the BPS payments for English or Northern Ireland farmers.

The shadow Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his position as a fellow west country MP, claimed that the Bill before us would have been unnecessary had the Agriculture Bill passed in the last Parliament. However, he will be aware, having debated these issues with me in the Bill Committee, that in the last Parliament it was envisaged that the withdrawal agreement would be concluded, agreed and implemented before the Agriculture Bill concluded.

For reasons I am sure no one in this House need be reminded of, the withdrawal agreement became a quite protracted debate. In the event, because certain forces in the last Parliament came together to try to block Brexit altogether, that issue had to be resolved before Bills such as the Agriculture Bill could progress. I am pleased to say that it was eventually resolved through the general election. This Government now have a clear mandate to leave the European Union at the end of this month, and to do so with the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister negotiated in October.

It is also wrong for the shadow Secretary of State to say that had we passed the Agriculture Bill earlier, we would have been in a position to begin the agricultural transition sooner. Both our White Paper and the Agriculture Bill always envisaged the transition period starting in the 2021 scheme year. We are back on course. There is therefore no need for the Bill to cover anything other than the current year. The Agriculture Bill, which we will debate shortly, will deliver everything we need for future years.

[Neil Parish]

I very much welcome what the Minister is saying, because the transitional period from 2021 to 2028 is exactly the way to do it. The key will be making sure that we have the new policies in place in time for farmers to take up the new payments.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, the transitional period is a feature of the Agriculture Bill that we will debate in the coming months.

The performance of the Rural Payments Agency was highlighted by the shadow Secretary of State and a number of other hon. Members. I pay tribute to Paul Caldwell, the chief executive of the RPA, and his team for the huge progress that they have made to get the current CAP system stabilised and back on track. They have just lodged their best performance for many years, with more than 93% of farmers paid by the end of December and many more paid since then. The environmental and countryside stewardship schemes have been stabilised, with those payments back on track too. In recent years, making sense of a hopelessly bureaucratic common agricultural policy has certainly had its challenges, but I urge Members to refrain from criticising the RPA while it tries to deal with those bureaucratic challenges, and I thank it for the work that it has done.

That brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) about the scope to simplify schemes. The truth is that, in this particular year, the horizontal regulation and all the CAP regulation will come across, and the scope to change or simplify is very limited. There will, however, be a margin of appreciation, with the absence of draconian EU audit requirements, for us to consider how we implement those things. There will be some modest changes, but the big changes he seeks, such as addressing the problems of the three-crop rule and wider regulatory problems in the scheme, will be provided for in the Agriculture Bill and are a matter for the future.

The shadow Secretary of State and a number of other Members alluded to rare breeds. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State has read the new Agriculture Bill, and I am sure he will read it again closer to its Second Reading. He will presumably have noted that we have made an addition to the list of objectives for public goods, to include native breeds and genetic resources, so that we will be able to directly support and recognise the public good value of rare and native breeds.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) made the point that this legislation is important for all parts of the UK. I am pleased to say that both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have granted a legislative consent motion. This Bill is uncontentious. We will have many disagreements on elements of the Agriculture Bill, but this piece of legislation is necessary for all parts of the UK.

The hon. Lady also mentioned wider issues, including seasonal agricultural workers. I would like to pay tribute to Kirstene Hair, the former Member for Angus, for the considerable work that she did on that issue. The Conservative party and the Government are now committed to quadrupling the size of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme from 2,500 to 10,000. That was largely due to the work done by Kirstene Hair. I am pleased to welcome the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) to his seat, and I am reassured to hear that he has already picked up on this issue, since the soft fruit industry in his part of the Scotland is vital. I commend him on an admirable speech.

I also commend the excellent maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones). She spoke with passion about her constituency, and I know that she will be a champion for it. As a former DEFRA official, she will certainly bring plenty of expertise to the House on Bills such as this.

It is a great pleasure to welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson). I have fond memories of the month that I spent assisting him in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election in 2008, the first time he was elected, and it is great to have his expertise back in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) raised issues about the rolling up of payments in future agriculture schemes. That is provided for in the new Agriculture Bill. I know that he is passionate about public access for schoolchildren and perhaps even cycling, and I will discuss those issues further with him.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) is a committed enthusiast for our native breeds, the pasture-based livestock system and food labelling. We will debate those issues further on Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) asked an important question about whether this money will be required to be spent on the BPS. It has to be paid and spent within the parameters of the direct payment regulations. In theory, there is some discretion in how the Welsh Government spend it. In practice, the rules of the direct payment scheme are so prescriptive that the scope to do anything different is very limited. I point out that, under the Bew review, there has been an uplift for Wales, albeit less generous than the one for Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asked about the budget and currency fluctuations. Article 13 of the state aid rules was retained through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, and we do not believe that there will be any implications of having fixed the exchange rate in the year just gone for the forthcoming year. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about the importance of profit in farming, which I concur with. In conclusion, I hope that I have covered as many of the different points raised as possible, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Leo Docherty.)

Question agreed to.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments to farmers under the direct payment schemes provided for by the Direct Payments Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013) as incorporated into domestic law by the Act;

(2) any increase in the sums required for that purpose where the increase is attributable to a decision made by virtue of the Act to increase the total maximum amount of direct payments in the United Kingdom;

(3) administrative expenditure of the Secretary of State incurred by virtue of the Act in connection with the operation of those direct payment schemes;

(4) any increase in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act where the increase is attributable to the Act and arises in connection with the operation of those direct payment schemes.—( Leo Docherty.)

Question agreed to.

Religious Slaughter of Farm Animals

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that. There is no barrier to using stunning for halal, provided it is what is called a recoverable stun. That same FSA report also worryingly revealed that 25% of all sheep slaughtered in the UK are slaughtered without stunning. That alarming rise is difficult to explain.

Our laws were formalised by the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, where the exemptions for religious slaughter were maintained. They have evolved from that through various stages, but the current position has not changed much since 1995. The principal plank of our national requirements on religious slaughter mainly revolve around standstill times. In the case of non-stunned slaughter, sheep cannot be moved until they have lost consciousness or, in any event, for at least 20 seconds. Cattle cannot be moved for at least 30 seconds, or until the animal has lost consciousness. There is a different requirement for chickens, which cannot be moved to the next stage of production until 30 seconds have elapsed or the bird has become unconscious. The purpose of those standstill times is to prevent stress on the animal.

It is worth recognising how animals die in a non-stun slaughter situation. For sheep, most of the evidence suggests—I have discussed this with officials—that they typically lose consciousness in somewhere between 10 and 15 seconds. It takes slightly longer for chickens, which lose consciousness in between 15 and 18 seconds.

The greatest concern, however, is always the impact on bovine animals—cattle—although they are small in number, because their physiology is complicated by the fact that they have a third artery that goes to the back of the head that continues to supply blood even after the cut has taken place. I apologise to hon. Members for going into the gruesome details, but if we allow such things to happen in our name, it is important to explain exactly what they are. For cattle, it typically takes 40 to 45 seconds for the animal to collapse—not to become unconscious, but to fall off its legs due to the lack of blood supply—and between one minute 20 seconds and two minutes for the animal to lose consciousness. A former Farming Minister, Jim Paice, once described a situation that he had seen when visiting a religious slaughter abattoir where it took six minutes for a bovine animal to bleed to death, which he said was a truly horrific event to watch.

I often hear from representatives of organisations such as Shechita UK that the cut is so precise and clean that it all happens very quickly, but there is not really any evidence to support that. In fact, in the shechita slaughter process, if the blood starts to clot in the throat cut, it is permitted for the slaughterman to push his hand into the wound and disturb the clotted blood to resume the flow. Those are difficult situations. For bovine animals in particular, it is a major cause for concern.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for his point about it being a moral issue. We rear animals as farmers and we want them to be stunned when they are killed. It is we—man—who decide how they are killed, not the animal. New Zealand has brought in stunning for all the halal it does across the world, and it exports a lot to the middle east. When we leave the European Union, we will have the opportunity to have a similar system.

With shechita, I wonder whether we could not at least have post-stunning of bovine animals. What my hon. Friend has described is horrendous and we need to do more to relieve the suffering of those animals.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will come to how other countries address this challenge.

All sorts of difficulties arise through our current rules on halal and shechita or kosher meat production. There are a wide range of definitions of halal. As hon. Members have pointed out, some statistics suggest that 70% to 80% of all animals slaughtered under halal are stunned. The key requirement for halal is that animals receive an Islamic blessing and that any stun should be recoverable, so that in theory they could regain consciousness. It is very hard to define what is halal, because it ranges from simply playing a recording of an Islamic blessing, right through to non-stun slaughter.

In the case of kosher meat, there is a further problem. The hind quarters of an animal are not deemed kosher, even if the animal was slaughtered under kosher methods. That means that the rump of cattle and sheep ends up going into the mainstream market—usually the service trade through Smithfield, where unwitting customers in restaurants in London and other parts of the country buy the meat not knowing it has been slaughtered by kosher methods.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate; I think that we should perhaps get back to organic farming. It is nice to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). I would like to put on the record my thanks for all the work that he did as Minister and all the great, detailed help that he has given the whole agriculture sector over this five-year period.

I welcome this debate tonight. We must remember that organic production in the UK is probably one of the best—if not the best—in the world. Converting to organics takes longer in this country than it does in other EU countries, even under present legislation. We must remember that our poultry, pig, beef, lamb and dairy industries all operate under very high standards of organic production and people respect and trust that production. We must remember, as we move forwards, to make sure that imports meet our very, very high standards.

We also have a lot of vegetable and fruit production, but much of that is organic. Again, it needs a great deal of labour. If a farmer weeds organically, they are not using any form of chemicals to destroy those weeds, which means that they have to use extra labour in order to keep that production going. We may in the future be able to electrocute weeds provided that we get them at a very early age. Seriously, this is something that may well help with the labour requirements in production in the future, but again that will not happen overnight, so we must be realistic as we move forward. I agree very much with the Minister and the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, that DEFRA has done an awful lot of work to prepare either for a deal on Brexit or for no deal.

We can deal well with the imports of organic food, because we can bring products in, check the standards and ensure that they flow freely into the country. Where I have slightly more of a problem—DEFRA has admitted this to me, although it is not its fault—is that every time the Department contacts the European Union about registering as a third country and ensuring that there is third country equivalence, we just do not get a reply. To a degree, we can let the imports flow in because we can recognise the previous EU standards, but it will be much more difficult to get that food across the channel if the EU decides to play hardball.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about being listed as a third country so that exports can continue. Shortly before I left the Department, there was a request from the European Union that we dynamically align our regulations for a period of nine months, and in return the EU would recognise our third country status from the start. We are obviously willing to agree to that.

[Neil Parish]

I very much welcome that comment, because two or three weeks ago, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee went to DEFRA, where we saw the regulations being laid out and had a look at what was happening. I welcome what my hon. Friend said, but I reiterate that as much as I may love our French cousins, they can be very difficult when it comes to trading into the European Union. Much of our produce will have to pass from Dover through into Calais, and we have to be absolutely certain that they will process our food and let it into the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The Minister has talked about amendments to the Agriculture Bill. Will he and the Secretary of State really look at those amendments, and especially those that maintain high standards for imported foods, so that we do not put our own farmers out of business?

[George Eustice]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have already looked closely at some of the interesting amendments he has tabled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to ensure that agricultural products produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards than UK products will not be included in any future trade agreements.

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

Our current high standards, including on import requirements, will apply when we leave the EU. Some of them, such as the ban on the use of growth-promoting hormones, are already in domestic legislation. Others, such as the ban on chlorine washing of poultry, will be brought on to our statute book through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Countries seeking access to our markets in future will have to abide by our standards.

[Neil Parish]

Ministers are naturally keen to raise welfare standards in this country, and to reduce the use of antibiotics and produce greater and better food than we already have, but if we are undermined by imports, that will put farmers out of business and reduce global animal welfare. Will Ministers therefore accept the amendment that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has tabled to ensure that imports are not allowed into this country if they do not meet our standards of production?

[George Eustice]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, we had a good discussion on these matters in the Bill Committee, and I look forward to discussing his amendment on Report. Our view is that the types of measure that he has outlined would probably not be right, because it is sometimes possible to recognise equivalence, and our standards do not have to be identical in drafting regulations. However, there are a number of other approaches that some countries take, including scrutiny and oversight roles for Parliaments as trade deals are discussed.

Leaving the EU: Upland Farming

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend that I have already looked at that scheme; I visited it two years ago. The Dartmoor Farming Futures project can show us the way, and it is something that we can learn from. It has been developed as a pilot, as a bit of a derogation from existing EU rules. As we think about future policies, we are keen to work out how we can tailor them to an individual area and focus more on outcomes, rather than processes and inputs.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), we are making a bespoke arrangement for the future. The Dartmoor scheme has huge amounts to recommend it, but in the meantime, many of our stewardship schemes will run out before we can set up the new schemes, so is it not a good idea to run the existing systems on for a couple of years, and pick up a bespoke arrangement when we are ready? Otherwise, many of these schemes will fall, and instead of getting more environmental benefits, we might get fewer. I am very concerned about that.

[George Eustice]

I was going to come back to that. We will be absolutely certain that the existing countryside stewardship schemes will run on and be funded. Some of the agreements will outlive our membership of the European Union; they will continue to be funded until we have successor schemes in place.

[Neil Parish]

Will they run on even if they have run out?

Brexit: Trade in Food

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 14th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

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, HC 1021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. As you have said, let us hope we see a Minister in the very near future.

Before we begin, it is one year since the disaster of Grenfell Tower, and I want to remember those whose lives were devastated when they lost their loved ones and their homes. We should all reflect on that.

I welcome the Minister’s announcement in the Chamber last night that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will bring forward two Bills on sentencing and animal sentience, as recommended by our Committee.

The British public voted to leave the European Union in 2016 so that we could take back control of our money, laws and regulations. Farming is a prime example of that. For 40 years, all our policies have come from Brussels, but now we will be able to decide a new farming policy for ourselves. I chaired the agriculture committee of the European Parliament, and in trying to deal with 27 countries, from Finland in the north to Spain in the south, it can sometimes be difficult to come up with a policy that suits everyone. We have a bright future, provided we embrace what will be good not only for the environment, but for farming and food production in this country.

We need to know exactly what impact Brexit will have on our agricultural sector. That is why the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee held an inquiry on Brexit and food, which we published on 18 February. My Committee spoke to many people—farmers from all sectors, academics and other food and farming professionals—and they all agreed that trade is crucial to the farming industry. As a rural MP and a former dairy farmer, I know more than most how important that trade is. [Interruption.] It is good to see the Minister arriving. I will allow him to take his seat. It is all right, Minister. It is usually me who is late, not him.

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

I must give my apologies for missing the start of the debate. The reason is that I thought a debate of such importance should be in the main Chamber. I was hovering outside the wrong Chamber, but I am here now. I apologise for missing the first few minutes.

[Neil Parish]

That is a very good apology. The Minister elevated our debate to the Chamber when we are actually in Westminster Hall. I appreciate his explanation and thank him for arriving. I am sure his officials will fill him in on the start of my speech.

We have a great farming industry and high-quality products, and it is important that that is supported over the coming years. Continued trade with the EU is essential to ensuring our farming sector thrives after Brexit. We must have an outward-looking, global Britain. That will be key to seeing our agricultural sector flourish, but we must also maintain a good share of our home market and home production. I feel strongly about that. We buy 70% of our food and drink imports from the EU, and we sell 60% of our food and drink exports back to the EU. We can see that trade to the EU is extremely important, and that that means that a farming-focused free trade agreement with the EU is essential. We have always sought reassurance from Ministers that as the deals are done, DEFRA, DEFRA Ministers and the Secretary of State will be at the forefront.

If we do not reach a free trade agreement with the EU, our agricultural goods might well be subject to tariffs once we have left. EU tariffs are high. Tariffs on dairy products are over 30%, and they can be as high as 80% on frozen beef. Reverting to World Trade Organisation rules would be even worse, as tariffs there are far higher for agricultural goods than for many other products. In addition, all countries must be treated equally under WTO rules. For example, Irish beef would need to have the same tariff as Brazilian beef, which could be devastating not only for us, but for Ireland. That is why our report recommends that the Government undertake work as a matter of urgency to evaluate the impact of any deal that they negotiate.

We are calling on the Government to publish a sector-by-sector analysis on the impact of Brexit so that we can better understand how tariffs will affect our farmers. For instance, in the dairy sector we import a similar amount to what we export. We are often importing yoghurts and cheeses, and we have the ability to produce more of those ourselves. We could therefore reduce the need for imports, as we could in other sectors, such as the pig and lamb sectors.

We export some 40% of our lamb, and import some 35%. On the face of it, we could say, “That’s okay. Stop the exports and the imports and we can eat all our own lamb,” but in reality we are exporting fifth-quarter joints and importing legs of lamb from New Zealand. We can see that the trade in lamb backwards and forwards, and with France in particular, is incredibly important.

The Secretary of State assured us on the sector-by-sector analysis yesterday in Committee, and I seek your assurance, Minister, that that work is under way and will be published. In my view, it should have been done already. We have seen, rightly in many respects, many more extra staff being taken on in DEFRA, but I have to say bluntly to you, Minister—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I apologise again for being late to the debate, for the reasons I described earlier.

I thank the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for introducing the debate. This is an incredibly important issue that matters to all sectors of the economy and to food and farming. I want to set out, for the record, the Government’s approach to our future trading relationship with the European Union, because that is important. Much of the report looked at the consequences of a possible no-deal Brexit, for reasons I can understand and that I will deal with, but it is important to recognise the UK’s position.

We are seeking a bold and comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union. We want tariff-free access for all sectors, which would be reciprocated, and we seek a frictionless border. We believe that the growth of technology in the last 20 to 30 years means that we do not have to have as much friction at the border as some would claim. Indeed, we have looked the procedures used prior to 1993, when the single market was introduced—an important point that many people forget. We had frictionless borders not when we joined the European Union, but after 1993. Technology has assisted a lot with the frictionless borders that we enjoy today in the European Union—that is not just about the regulations of the single market.

[Neil Parish]

I agree with the Minister entirely; it would be great if we could get the frictionless trade deal and frictionless borders. Is he convinced that when we have the technology—I think we have it—it will work? I must be quite blunt about the Rural Payments Agency, Natural England and others. I know he will defend them to the hilt, but I said yesterday that they are not fit for purpose. If they were in the private sector, they probably would be dead by now, because they do not handle things properly—every time, we get more and more problems. The key thing is whether we can get this to work and whether we can get Europe to agree to it. Ultimately, let us get those lorries across the border and back again. We all want that. That is the reassurance we are all looking for.

[George Eustice]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was going to come on to why it is in everyone’s interest to do the type of agreement that we are offering. We do not believe that we have to have total uniformity of regulations on these various issues to have a frictionless border. It is quite possible to recognise what in trade jargon is called equivalence.

Our offer to the European Union is that bold and comprehensive free trade agreement, tariff-free trade and frictionless borders, where the European Union and the UK can both adopt a risk-based approach to any border checks they might put in place, assisted by technology. We want to give each other confidence by agreeing a set of arrangements through which we will recognise the equivalency of our various regulations. That can be done. Our starting point is not as a third country trying to establish a trade deal with the European Union, but as a member state that is stepping back from being a European Union member. On day one, we start with absolute uniformity of our regulations. That is unique in the world, which is why it is absolutely possible to do the type of agreement on borders that we seek.

The other point to recognise is that the European Union has a trade surplus with the UK in food and drink alone of £18 billion each year. It may feign indifference to its trade with the UK for the purpose of the negotiations that are going on, but that matters. Access to the UK market matters to Irish beef farmers, poultry producers in the Netherlands, pork producers in Denmark, horticultural producers in the Netherlands and cheese producers in France. They need access to the UK market. Therefore, it is in their interest to take up what we are offering, which is a comprehensive free trade agreement with frictionless borders.

[George Eustice]

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s points from his speech and will come back to them.

First, I want to address one of the questions posed by the report: what happens in a no-deal scenario? The reality is that there are quite a number of options open to an independent country in control of its own trade policy. It does not have to be most favoured nation rules, and that is the end of the story. One option for an independent country when setting its own trade policy would be to have unilateral tariff rate suspensions—it would keep the bound tariffs where they were, but it could suspend them on certain product lines if it wanted to. It also could have what is called an applied tariff for some product lines that was lower than the bound tariff set in the WTO schedule.

An independent country could also establish unilaterally something called autonomous tariff rate quotas—ATQs. They enable the country to create a quota in certain product lines to allow that tariff-free trade.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out that one of the issues is that those have to be what is described in trade jargon as erga omnes—open to all—around the world and not just to the European Union, but we could, of course, abide by our own sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. In a short period where such measures might prevail, our existing trading partners would find it easier to satisfy those and potential new ones. There are many tools in the box that we would have as an independent country controlling our own trade policy.

My hon. Friend also asked about a sector-by-sector analysis. He will be aware that in December last year, the Department for Exiting the European Union published analyses for each sector. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) read that and was very complimentary about the detail in it. There was a specific report in there on the food and drink sector—my hon. Friend will be aware that, in addition to that, the Government have done a great deal of more detailed ongoing analysis and modelling—but for reasons that we have been clear about, and that I think Parliament understands, there are certain things in a negotiation that we should not put out there. Not everything that we have done has been published, but we have published that report sector by sector.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. This is important and we have plenty of time, hence I will take up a bit more. When you say “sector by sector”, are you talking about the food and drink—

[Neil Parish]

When the Minister says “sector by sector”, is he referring to the food and drink sector? Our report naturally referred to the individual sectors of agriculture—dairy, sheep, beef and so on. This issue is linked not only to trade, but to the support policies that will be needed. An extensive beef and sheep farmer perhaps needs the basic farm payment much more than a dairy farmer due to the overall income from that business. That is what we are particularly interested in.

[George Eustice]

Yes, I understand, and I was going to come on to that. Although, of course, we have done other, more detailed work, not all of which has been published, I think I pointed out in evidence to the Committee that in March 2016 the National Farmers Union commissioned a detailed piece of work by a Dutch university, which looked at precisely that issue—what would happen under a most favoured nation trading scenario for a range of sectors. I probably cannot go much further, except to say that I recommend that research to anyone with an interest in this area because its analysis was broadly correct. In summary, it showed that some sectors are indeed more exposed than others to our trade with the European Union.

Notably, as the shadow Minister pointed out, the sheep sector is quite dependent on our trade with the European Union. The analysis commissioned by the NFU bore that out. It also identified that there might be some impact on barley producers that export for the lager industry in Europe in a most favoured nation scenario. However, broadly speaking, for most producers in every other sector there would actually be a slight firming in farm-gate prices, because most sectors would have less import competition. It is hard to predict exactly what would happen in a no-deal scenario, but in a scenario in which it was slightly harder to export lamb to Europe and harder to import beef from Ireland, some mixed beef and sheep enterprises likely would diversify a little more into beef to substitute for Irish imports and put a little less into sheep, particularly if they were exposed to the export market in countries such as France, Greece and Belgium.

There would obviously be changes under such a scenario, but it is worth reflecting on debates in the House in the late 1950s on whether we should join the European Union or remain a member of the European Free Trade Association. I am afraid that, given the nature of the debates we are having now, I revisited some of those debates to understand how we got into this pickle in the first place. It is telling that in the late 1950s and early 1960s there was cross-party agreement that joining the European Union would be bad for agriculture. One reason we did not join early was that it was recognised that that would be negative for agriculture. It is interesting that the NFU analysis largely bears that out to this day.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

There are anecdotal reports that more have come back this year because of recent changes in the exchange rate. Some daffodil producers in the west country say that it was easier to get labour this winter than last. It is quite common for seasonal agricultural workers to return for a number of years, and indeed levels of returning are one of the yardsticks used to assess the availability of labour.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) posed a question in an intervention about rules of origin. The Government are looking at that area. Obviously, not every nation state in the world is a member of the European Union. Lots of countries are not, and they have quite established procedures on rules of origin. While we have not reached a final position on those issues, there is, for instance, the pan-Euro-Mediterranean regional convention, which is a rules of origin system covering countries both in and not in the European Union. Other parts of the world have therefore addressed such issues.

I turn to points raised by the shadow Minister, who asked about how we are approaching the WTO. We have been clear that our schedule of tariff rate quotas on agricultural products should be divided between the EU and the UK based on an historical reference period. We regard that as a matter of technical rectification rather than reopening everything for renegotiation, and that is the approach we are taking on existing TRQs.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned New Zealand lamb and pointed out that we have a TRQ of just short of 250,000 tonnes for lamb from New Zealand coming into the UK. It is also important to recognise that, in recent years, New Zealand has only ever used about 70% of its quota. That demonstrates that long before the ceiling of that tariff rate quota is hit, they find themselves unable to compete with UK producers. I am more optimistic than some about British sheep producers’ ability to compete with New Zealand and Australia. Many do so already. As a country, we should not get spooked by some kind of New Zealand haka on lamb production. We need to get on the pitch and play, and I think we will find that we can beat them.

We have been clear that in any future trade agreements we will maintain our standards. We will not reduce our standards in pursuit of a trade deal. That is a common feature. It is quite possible for us, through doing trade deals with third countries, to require that those who wish to supply us under such agreements must meet our standards.

Just this morning, I visited the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and talked to officials who were involved in our negotiations with the United States on reopening its market for British beef, which we have worked on for a number of years. There are opportunities for British beef exports to the United States, but there are also one or two technical areas where the United States wants us to change our rules for those supplying them to meet their standards. For instance, they have a slightly different approach to monitoring things such as E. coli and to the methodology that a vet should use when visually inspecting animals as they arrive in the pen.

We could go in and say, “This is no good. You’ve got to change your rules to be like the British rules,” but we do not. Actually, we say, “Fair enough. Those suppliers who want to supply that market should do that. We should respect their rules, and they should respect ours.” Equally, if US producers want to supply the British market, it is absolutely open to us to say that that must be done on British standards. We are a free-trading country, and we will be open to doing trade deals, but we are clear that we have standards and values that we will not abandon.

[Neil Parish]

We have very high standards in this country. We also use less and less antibiotics in producing meat. The Americans still use a lot more antibiotics, their environmental standards are lower and often their welfare standards are lower. On the antibiotic side in particular, we must be clear in negotiations that we do not reduce our standards and allow in products that have had many more antibiotics.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We recently introduced new regulations and licensing requirements covering commercial boarding establishments, but there are no current plans to regulate rescue homes. We do not want to create unnecessary burdens on the charitable sector. However, many such establishments are members of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, members of which must already meet minimum standards.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I think we can all agree that we have great British food and great British farming, but we also have a processing industry that is 13% of our manufacturing sector. Why does the Command Paper not talk more about food, food security and food production, which are essential not only for our environment but for our food security in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to support food producers after the UK leaves the EU.

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

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in the United States on departmental business, representing UK interests. I know that he has already written to you about that, and he sends his apologies to the House.

Last week, the Government launched a consultation setting out the policy framework for agriculture after the UK leaves the European Union. This Command Paper outlined a series of proposals to help farmers invest in their farms and become more profitable, to support new entrants coming into the industry and to support collaborative working in areas such as research and development.

[Neil Parish]

There was nearly a state crisis this morning: the pedal came off my bicycle at Vauxhall bridge. I managed to get here just in time.

I very much welcome the Command Paper. It talks much about having a greener and better environment for the future, but does the Minister agree that part of that agriculture paper must include the means of production—good-quality production—and our being able to increase, rather than decrease, the food that we grow in this country as we go forward with a new British agricultural policy?

[George Eustice]

I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes. He and I both have a background in the farming industry, and we recognise the importance of this strategically vital industry for our country. He will know that we have a manifesto commitment to grow our agriculture industry and produce more food. Our consultation outlines a number of proposals, including improving both our productivity and research and development.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 6th July 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), back to this place and back to this wonderful brief, DEFRA, where we have so many complex issues to deal with.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate to discuss the important work that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has done on migrant labour as it applies to agriculture. It published its report in April, getting it out just before the general election, and it was a pleasure to give evidence to its inquiry earlier this year, alongside the Home Office Minister who is now the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill).

I completely recognise that the Committee has received a number of strong representations from the farming industry. I also understand that, as a number of hon. Members have said, part of the backdrop to the debate is a general apprehension in the farming industry about what might happen once we have left the European Union and what arrangements might be put in place to replace the free movement of labour that it currently enjoys.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton will be aware that the Home Office leads on this issue. He will also be aware that I have personal experience in this industry and understand the challenge well. The challenge has been set out by a number of hon. Members, particularly those with fruit producers in their constituencies, including my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). All those constituencies rely heavily on migrant labour.

I ran a soft fruit enterprise for the best part of 10 years. We used to employ 250 staff. Our farm in Cornwall was nicknamed locally “the United Nations”, because we had people from many different countries. We had staff from EU countries, but also some staff from Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, who were here on the then holiday work visa scheme. I know what it is like, and I know what it is like to have to close the gate on a field of strawberries that cannot be harvested because there are not enough staff.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out, the seasonal agricultural workers scheme has been around since 1945. It was brought in after the war to ensure that we could provide our farms with the workers that they needed. However, as the EU expanded, the need for the scheme decreased. From 1990, it was subject to quotas, and in 1990 the quota was set at 5,500 places. It went up to about 25,000 by 2003, was reduced again in 2005 after the big accession of a number of new member states whose people were able to come here and work, and was put back up to 21,250 in 2008.

In 2005, the Home Office announced its intention to phase out, over time, existing quota-based low-skilled migration schemes, including SAWS, because labour needs at low skill levels were deemed to be capable of being met from an expanded EU labour market. From 2008 to 2013, SAWS was open only to nationals of Bulgaria and Romania, while transitional restrictions on their labour market access remained in place. The decision to end SAWS was informed by advice from the Migration Advisory Committee, which considered there to be no immediate shortfall in the supply of seasonal labour, although at the point at which it gave that advice, it conceded that in the medium to long term, which it identified as being possibly sometime after 2017, shortages could arise and we should therefore keep matters under review, which we have.

DEFRA established the SAWS transition working group. That met as recently as 6 March this year and discussed some of these issues of anecdotal reports that things are getting harder. Its conclusion in the March meeting, which I will come on to in more detail, was that this was a challenging situation but not a crisis.

My hon. Friend cast some doubt on the figures used by the former Home Office Minister and suggested they were out of date. That is unfair because the figures are clear and correct. The Office for National Statistics figures for January to March 2017 show that the number of EU nationals working in the UK was up by 171,000 to a total of 2.32 million. We also know that around 350,000 EU nationals work in the food chain.

The figures are right, but I agree and concede that they are migration figures. We are talking about something slightly different—seasonal migration, which does not show up in those figures. Seasonal migration is for those who come here for short periods—typically six months —and then return home for part of the year. Estimates of the number of people who come here as seasonal migrant workers and return home every year range from 67,000 to 80,000.

When the SAWS transition group met on 6 March, it discussed the reason for this anecdotal reporting of a tightening in that labour market, and a number of possible reasons were advanced. First, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the weakening of the pound against the euro means that it is less attractive to come here and work, particularly if people are sending money back home. Secondly, it was pointed out that there have been changes to child benefit entitlement in Poland, which means fewer people from Poland are coming to the UK. Thirdly, Bulgaria has been taking steps to encourage its workforce to stay and work there, which is also thought to be a factor. A number of factors may have had an impact on seasonal migrant workers, even though we know that net migration from the EU has continued to rise.

A number of hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, asked what research we are doing. The EFRA Committee’s report asked us to review things before the end of the year. I have asked officials to continue to monitor the situation closely, given the reports we are getting. In fact, they have a meeting tomorrow with some of the employment providers and the NFU. The purpose of the meeting is to establish what data we need to come back from the industry and under what timescale they are able to provide it. Having established that, we have at the earliest opportunity to convene another formal meeting of the SAWS transition group to review the data. It is very important that we are able to review the data across the whole of 2017.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister very much for that thoughtful and good response. We can collect all these data, but if we see a tightening in the labour market, are we able to put a SAWS arrangement in place for next year? This is the bit I worry about. The Government say they can act fast, but some of the previous fast actions have taken longer than six months—dare I say?—and I am a little concerned. I hope we can be swift of foot. I am not making a party political point, just a point for the Government.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Office leads on this area. He will also be aware that our colleague, the then Immigration Minister, said that he believed it could stand up a SAWS scheme within five to six months. I understand that it would require a statutory instrument, because it is not the case that the SAWS scheme is dormant and reduced to zero. In secondary legislation, the SAWS scheme was discontinued when we passed the legislation allowing the accession and ending of the transitional arrangements for Romania and Bulgaria. I believe it needs secondary legislation, and it would be a matter for the Home Office. My hon. Friend’s Committee heard what the Home Office Minister had to say on that.

There is a difference across the year and between sectors. A number of hon. Members have used the term “peak strawberry”. We know that the third quarter—that is, from July to September—is always the period when demand for seasonal labour is highest and the most important quarter to watch. In other parts of the year the pressure is lower, which can mean that different sectors are affected differently. It means, for instance, that the soft fruit sector reports the greatest problems.

Earlier today I spoke to a farmer I know, a daffodil grower in Cornwall, who employs more than 1,200 seasonal staff, predominantly from Romania and Bulgaria. They reported to me that they did not have any problems at all and actually want to increase the number of seasonal staff. They are looking at Bulgaria, a very large country, and working with jobcentres there. They are not reporting any difficulty in getting the staff they need. Of course, this is the daffodil industry during the first quarter, when competition for labour tends to be low, so I appreciate that it is different for some others. I also mentioned exchange rates, and they pointed out that it is not a big issue for them because although the exchange rate is down, it is roughly back to the levels it was in 2010-11. Exchange rates do go up and down and businesses have to plan for that.

I want to talk a bit about the context of the EU, which the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) raised. Obviously, while we are in the EU, nothing changes. We still have free movement. I understand, however, that people want clarity about what will happen after we leave, and that is part of the backdrop, which the Government understand. While we want to have controlled migration, we are very clear that we are not pulling up the drawbridge. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), asked about research. In addition to the work being done by the SAWS transition group convened by DEFRA, the Home Office intends to commission the Migration Advisory Committee to look at the UK labour market and our reliance on EU migrant labour across sectors. That will include looking at the SAWS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Prime Minister has made it clear that she wants a bold, ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement. We are looking closely at the issue of border controls, particularly in respect of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. We talk regularly to industry on the issue, and we have a meeting with some of the devolved Administrations later today in which we will be looking at precisely these sorts of issues.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Lamb is trading at significantly lower prices this year than it did last year at this time. New Zealand lamb comes in during the winter, when our lambs do not, and there seems to be too much New Zealand lamb in our major retailers and not enough British lamb. I would like the Minister to bring it to the attention of the major retailers that British lamb should now be in the shops, which should not be packed with New Zealand lamb.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. At Easter, people really want to buy high-quality west country, Welsh and Scottish lamb, and indeed lamb from every part of the United Kingdom. We faced an issue this year, in that prices were actually very good during the winter, which meant that a number of sheep producers decided to sell their lamb early and so there has been less British lamb available at this time of year.

Greyhound Welfare

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

We do not have a timescale, but I believe that the board is developing the standard now. We expect to see it developed, certainly during the course of 2018. Indeed, we have decided to delay the introduction of some of the small legislative requirements necessary until we have had an opportunity to review how the BSI standard is working.

The Government also want the board to deliver on the other commitments it has given to Ministers, which tie in closely with the Select Committee’s recommendations and its proposed two-year probationary period. The board has agreed to begin publishing annually from 2018 figures for the number of dogs injured and euthanised at GBGB tracks and the number of dogs that leave GBGB racing, including an explanation of what “leave” means.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for going into so much detail about our report and how the Government are implementing quite a lot of what we recommended. I just question why it is necessary to wait until 2018 for those figures. Either GBGB has them or it does not. Why can it not bring them about now?

[George Eustice]

I will move on to that point, which my hon. Friend raised in his speech. I had that conversation with GBGB. The 2010 regulations required tracks to record those data as part of the local authority licensing regime and the UKAS regime run by GBGB, but those data were never actually collated centrally by GBGB. When I had that conversation with GBGB to secure its commitment to publish those anonymised data, it undertook to begin collating them forthwith. That happened to be earlier this year, so a full set of annual data will be available at the end of 2017. That is what lies behind GBGB’s commitment to publish the data from 2018. I reassure my hon. Friend that I pressed GBGB to see whether the data could be published earlier, but it explained that it had not yet collated them and they were simply recorded by individual tracks. I took that at face value, and I understand what the board says. If we can get those data published from 2018, that seems an important step forward and will probably achieve things far faster than any regulatory device might.

My hon. Friend also mentioned kennels away from tracks, which I have dealt with already. GBGB is planning to add that to the UKAS accreditation scheme and is developing a BSI standard for it.

My hon. Friend made the good suggestion that it is important that we recognise and give credit to gaming companies that contribute to the voluntary levy. As part of its annual report, the British Greyhound Racing Fund publishes a list of all the bookmakers that contribute to that fund. I do not have a copy of that report with me, but I am reliably informed that it already lists and gives credit to everyone who contributes to the fund. It is open to the industry to name and shame those who do not contribute. Indeed, the industry would probably gain some kudos if it were willing to do that, because I have not heard any Member here express sympathy with people who freeload and do not pay their share. The industry and the racetracks may want to consider that.

Equine Slaughterhouses (CCTV)

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

I understand that; indeed, in many areas we learn from one another when different Administrations trial different pieces of legislation; we share ideas and often work together.

A variety of laws provide protection for the welfare of horses. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 places a clear duty of care on owners and keepers to provide for the welfare needs of their horses. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) discussed abandoned horses and made the important point that there are wider welfare issues that we must not lose sight of. He will be aware that, in recognition of the specific welfare issues that arise with some horses, the Government recently supported the introduction of the Control of Horses Act 2015 to help landowners and local authorities to deal with the problem of horses left on other people’s land without their permission, which can often give rise to animal welfare issues.

The Government are also firmly committed to improving standards of animal welfare at slaughter. At the end of their lives, horses are covered by WATOK—the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015—which sets out requirements pertinent to the protection of animals at slaughter.

[Neil Parish]

I know that the Minister is very keen on animal welfare and does a great deal to promote it. I just wonder why it is not possible to have compulsory cameras for the slaughter of horses, both in the slaughterhouse itself and in the lairage, to ensure that the horses are handled properly all the way through. I feel that that is something that we could do, and it would not be so difficult to make it compulsory.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I will come on to all those issues, which are so pertinent to the debate.

WATOK sets out protections for all animals, regardless of whether there is CCTV in slaughterhouses. There are clear legal obligations on all operators to have standard operating procedures, including monitoring procedures, in place for all slaughter operations, as well as trained stockmen and trained slaughtermen. Official veterinarians from the Food Standards Agency are present during slaughter operations to monitor and enforce animal health and welfare regulations.

On equine slaughter specifically, several long-standing national requirements in WATOK are relevant to the special needs of horses at the time of killing—the business operator must ensure that a separate room or bay is provided for the killing of horses; no person may kill a horse in a room or a bay where there are the remains of a horse or other animal; and no horse may be killed within sight of another horse.

As several hon. Members have pointed out, there are currently five approved equine slaughterhouses in England and Wales, and they are all located in England. Three of them have CCTV installed in some areas for animal welfare purposes. Some 3,280 horses were slaughtered in the past 12 months, and the two plants without CCTV were responsible for only 32 of those animals. From the perspective of equine slaughter, then, most horses are slaughtered in premises with CCTV—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 5th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will be aware that in England we slaughter some 28,000 cattle a year. Last year, both England and Wales saw a slight increase in the prevalence of the disease, but that tends to move in cycles. In the previous year, we saw a slight reduction in the disease. I understand that the cattle movement controls we have put in place are frustrating for some farmers, but they are also a necessary part of eradicating this disease. We have to do all of these things—deal with the reservoir of disease in the wildlife population, improve biosecurity on farms and, yes, improve cattle movement controls so that we can reduce transmission of the disease.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

When will the Minister be able to give the scientific figures for the badger cull areas to show the reduction in the amount of disease in cattle?

[George Eustice]

As my hon. Friend knows, the randomised badger culling trials a decade or more ago found that the benefits of the culling of badgers were only seen some four years after the conclusion of the culls. The reality is that the programme is a long-term commitment and it will be several years before we can see the impact of the culls. From figures from last year, however, we know that perturbation, which several hon. Members have previously highlighted to me, was actually far less of an issue in years one and two of the culls in Gloucester and Somerset than people predicted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

T4. Dairy farmers are suffering due to low prices—there is a lot of milk in the market. One of the markets that we still cannot get into is Russia. What is happening? Is there any chance that we can get back into that market? European and British dairy farmers are paying a high price for the ban on exports to Russia.

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

My hon. Friend makes the important point that the Russian trade embargo has exacerbated the challenges facing the dairy sector and others, such as the pig sector. However, we put in place sanctions against Russia because of its totally unacceptable conduct against Ukraine and its incursions into Ukrainian territory. It is important that we show solidarity with other European countries and do not accept how Russia has behaved towards Ukraine.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We ruled out Hilbre Island, following assessments by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, because the simple truth was that the features that people said were there were not there sufficiently for us to designate those areas.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

For farmers, farmgate prices are so low that the single farm payment is absolutely essential. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Rural Payments Agency recognises that there are still too many farmers who have not received their payments, and that work is being done to ensure that, next year, we catch up so that we are not late in paying again?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I believe that the discard ban is absolutely right, although it will obviously take some time to get its implementation right. What will be done about fish that are landed and may or may not be fit for human consumption, but could be used as fish food, or even for farming purposes?

[George Eustice]

We are discussing that with processors and port authorities, but we believe that we have enough processing capacity to create fishmeal, although there may be problems with transport from the ports to the locations where the fishmeal is processed. We want to change fishing behaviour, and to reduce the amount of unwanted fish that is landed by means of more selective gears and changes in fishing patterns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s help for dairy farming through exports, public procurement and general support, but what talks has she had with the banks? I think milk prices will improve, but the banks need to support farmers in the meantime.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There will be short-term cash-flow pressures on farmers who are currently receiving low prices and in some cases have quite high costs. I have had a meeting already with the banks to discuss this and to encourage them to show forbearance. As the Secretary of State said earlier, we have also been encouraging HMRC to show forbearance to those farmers facing difficulties, and I will continue to monitor the issue closely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I met Northern Ireland representatives from Dairy UK when I was in Brussels last week and they raised that point with me. The European Commission is looking at the intervention price, and our officials are working on what the appropriate price would be. Generally, an increase in that intervention price would tend to benefit other countries that have lower prices before it benefits UK farmers, but we are considering the issue.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The dairy price of 25p and falling means that farmers are producing at a loss. The dairy trade adjudicator can look at parts of the trade, but are there more ways to deal with the price, especially of processed cheese in the supermarket sector? The price of milk is dealt with by supermarkets, but processed cheese is not.

[George Eustice]

I have considered those issues, which I discussed last week when I appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. My view is that our grocery code, together with the adjudicator, adequately covers retailers, and the Competition and Markets Authority has powers to consider issues further up the supply chain. Our dairy supply chain code is working successfully—the recent review by Alex Fergusson confirmed that—but we must focus on making it work better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady has raised this issue with me a number of times and we have had meetings on it. It was also raised with me at a meeting in Northern Ireland at the beginning of this year, and we continue to raise it with the Chinese authorities. When Mr Zhi, the Chinese farming Minister, was in the UK in April we took the opportunity to raise it again. We want more meat processors to be able to export pork to China and we need clearance for their plants. We will continue to keep up the pressure.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Exporting beef would improve the market here, and I know the Secretary of State has done an excellent job in China. Japan still bans our beef, right back from the days of BSE. We now have BSE completely under control, so it is time those markets were opened up again. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister do their very best to make sure that happens?

[George Eustice]

All I can say to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of this industry for many years, is that we are working on many different fronts to create new markets. In the past year, we have opened markets for breeding cattle to countries such as China, for pig meat to Chile and for dairy to Cuba. In the year ahead, we will continue to look at exporting beef to Singapore and poultry meat to Papua New Guinea. The country is working incredibly hard to open as many new export markets as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

An increase in the number of illegal imports of puppies has been reported, but the trading standards authorities are monitoring the position carefully, and intercepted the illegal movement of a number of puppies last year. We consider the pet passport scheme to be proportionate to the risk, but we also monitor the position carefully and work closely with agencies in other European countries.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

T4. Flooding has continued in my constituency, as it has in many other constituencies throughout the country. Seaton sea defences have held, but will the Secretary of State carry on devolving powers and money to parish councils and local land and property owners so that they can clear culverts and ditches when they become blocked? Will he also ensure that silt from rivers can be spread on fields as a fertiliser rather than a waste?

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Like me, he was a farmer before first entering the House and as farmers we are used to getting the blame for a lot of things. There are certainly environmental consequences to certain farming practices, but does he share my disbelief that farmers are in the dock for—of all things—causing climate change and being responsible for it, given that we all know that the real problems with carbon come from the transport sector, energy generation and general industrialisation rather than from farming?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend and I should probably both declare an interest; I should certainly do so as I am a farmer, and proud to be so. He is absolutely right, because what we have with methane gas from ruminants in particular is a very natural gas. It may come out perhaps too much for people’s liking, but it is very much there. We are taking lower-quality proteins—I had better be careful what I say—and developing them into high-quality meat. Therefore, the animal is doing a great deal of good, and I want to balance the amount of methane gas that the animals might produce compared with the amount of carbon that is kept in the land. I repeat the fact that if we do not keep that land as permanent pasture and plough it up, we will release an awful lot of carbon.

Farmers feel that the real basis of livestock farming is almost under threat. The whole idea of this report is perhaps to try to flag up in advance where the world might go to in a few years’ time, and that scenario is what I am particularly keen to avoid. People need to know the benefits of livestock farming.

I will move on to the next paragraph of the report. Food security is one of the most pressing issues for Governments across the world. By 2050, the global population is estimated to reach 9 billion, and food production will need to increase to meet growing demand. However, that has to be achieved using the existing agricultural land, while making more efficient use of water and mitigating the existing and future impact of farming on the environment.

The challenge is no less great on the home front, with the UK population set to increase by 10 million in the next quarter of a century alone and after the percentage of agricultural land in the UK fell from 39% in 1989 to some 25% in 2009. This means maximising the value of available land, by getting the best possible outcomes in terms of food production. British agricultural land comprises many different land types, and not all are suitable for the production of arable crops. This point was eloquently made by the food climate research network in its evidence to the all-party group:

“Not all land can support crop production and the question then arises—what should be done with this poorer quality, more marginal land? Traditionally the answer has been to graze ruminants which then provide us with meat, milk and other outputs. This represents a form of resource efficiency—the land is being used to produce food that would otherwise need to be produced elsewhere”

That is particularly important.

Almost 65% of UK farmland is only suitable for growing grass where sheep and cattle are grazed. We should be utilising this marginal land, which cannot be used for arable crops but can grow good grass and provide good biodiversity and environmental benefits. Beef cattle and sheep play a vital role in food production, because of their ability to turn non-human food into edible proteins and nutrients. Limiting the role of British livestock will reduce the efficiency with which we use our land for food production and will therefore reduce our ability to be self-sufficient.

These points are often neglected, or at least not adequately considered, by those who advocate meat-free diets. If, for argument’s sake, we were all to switch to a diet free of meat, much of our agricultural land would be unfarmed and we would see a considerable drop in the efficiency of our land to food conversion, in addition to the negative impacts on biodiversity, as outlined above.

When the developing world is eating more meat, and choosing to do so, there is a greater need to produce meat across the world. Therefore, Britain should do its fair share of meat production, and grazing both sheep and cattle on grassland is essential, in my view. Grazing cattle and sheep are often given disproportionate blame for carbon emissions from agriculture, and there is not enough recognition among some conservation groups of the role that livestock farming, particularly of grass-fed beef and lamb, plays in storing carbon, protecting biodiversity and utilising marginal land that cannot be used for arable crops.

I thank you for listening to this debate, Mrs Brooke, and open it to colleagues to join in.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between George Eustice and Neil Parish

Thursday 1st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I understand exactly where the hon. Lady is coming from, but looking at Scotland, dare I question whether the highlands and the bare rocks need the same payment as some land that can be farmed, such as grasslands? Averages of payment throughout Scotland are interesting. How I dare even suggest such things, I do not know—I do not want to get into a war with Scotland—but there are statistics and statistics.

We are at a crossroads, and at a place where Britain is well in advance of others, with regard to environment payments. We need to ensure that we can pay for those payments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton that modulation is unfair to British farmers. However, I also know that the Treasury is not noted for its generosity, and if we do not modulate, we will not have enough money to pay for our stewardship schemes. If the Minister and the Secretary of State with responsibility for agriculture went cap in hand to the Treasury, saying, “We already receive £2 billion or £3 billion from the CAP, but we need more money from the Treasury to prop up stewardship schemes,” I suspect that they would be told in good Anglo-Saxon terms to go on their way. As we negotiate the new agricultural policy, we must ensure that those stewardship schemes are funded through it in some shape or form. We must be careful when we say that we will throw the modulation out with the bathwater, because that may not be the right way forward.

This debate is a great opportunity, and I wish Ministers well in their negotiations. The argument in Europe is always that we should have an agricultural policy for the whole of Europe and a budget to fit that policy, but in the real politics of the European Union, there is a budget for agriculture, and agricultural policy is then fitted to that budget. That is exactly what will happen this time.

We must get the best deal for our farmers and the environment. I wish our new Minister and the Secretary of State well in their negotiations with our European partners. We must be tough to ensure that we move our agriculture forward to competitive food production and a green agriculture policy, but we must not lose sight of the fact that in the end, much of the food that our farmers produce is also part of the green environment.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that a problem with a one-size-fits-all policy such as the CAP is that it is difficult to have policy innovation, because any such innovation is stifled by the need for negotiations between 27 member states? Does he think it might be better gradually to move to a system with a common agricultural policy with common objectives—safeguarding the environment, improving animal welfare, and food security—so that those policies are increasingly delivered on the ground by national Governments from their own budgets, and we do not recycle funds through the EU in the first place?

[Neil Parish]

Yes. My hon. Friend raises a good point. What needs to be brought in is not only a policy, but co-financing, because each member state would then pay for its own agricultural policy, and might not be quite so keen on throwing money away on strange projects, as some countries do. Olive oil is produced in Greece, and reindeer are supported in north Finland and Sweden. Wheat and barley are grown across much of Europe, and rice is grown in parts of Italy and Greece. It is difficult to support a policy and have one aim. It would be much better to ensure that member states had their own money. The downside of that is that we do not want the French throwing all its money into supporting suckler cows and beef production, and that highly subsidised beef then coming across the channel to compete with our beef, which may not be subsidised in the same way.

[George Eustice]

I completely accept that point, but does my hon. Friend agree that for any other goods, and in any other part of the single market, state aid rules, which the European Court of Justice enforces, prevent that from happening? It would be possible to have an agricultural policy with common objectives, but delivered nationally, with those state aid rules to prevent the sort of behaviour he mentioned.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend has heard the phrase, “The law works for the law-abiding,” and we can be certain that the French would find every reason to distort the market in their favour, wait until that was challenged by the European Commission, and drag it through the European courts for years, so I am not as sure as he is that state aid rules will stop the French or anyone else distorting the market. We must be careful if we go down that route. State aid rules are a blunt weapon, and I believe the Anglo-Saxons in Europe conform to them more closely than those in other parts of the European Union. State aid rules alone will not be enough.

We must ensure that CAP reform is done in a way that does not distort the market further. We should green it, but have food production, and ensure that as we deal with farmers in this country, we have food production on the best land and increase it sustainably, but have conservation on our more marginal land. That is the way forward, and that is where we must be careful in our negotiations on the greening of the CAP. I look forward to Ministers doing a good job.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Chope. I am conscious that I was not here for the opening of the debate. The title of the Select Committee’s report is “Greening the Common Agricultural Policy,” but more specifically the Commission’s proposals are about greening pillar one of the CAP. It is worth noting that supporting the greening of pillar one represents quite a significant departure from the long-standing British foreign policy position, which is that we should gradually phase out pillar one and direct payments all together and put our support into pillar two, so that we can have more tailored local and national support for environmental stewardship schemes.

My concern is that by going for the greening of pillar one, we will end up with what is already being called in some circles green taping—rather than red tape, we will have green tape. There will be quite bureaucratic and centralised diktats coming out about what farmers can and cannot do, which invariably will not have been thought through properly. We might lose the opportunity to achieve the more satisfactory long-term objective of removing pillar one altogether and having effective, well thought through countryside stewardship schemes. In recent decades, British Governments of all colours have led the way in developing some of the successful ones. The entry-level and higher-level stewardship schemes are held up as exemplars for others to follow. There is a danger that we will lose that momentum towards a more sensible CAP and end up reverting to and getting bogged down in, again, quite a bureaucratic process.

I shall highlight a few key problems that I see with some of the proposals. There is the idea that we should go back to set-aside. We moved away from set-aside 15 or 20 years ago because it was not working. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that it is not always right to have just 7% of every farmholding set aside and not farmed intensively. The evidence is that if we really want to encourage wildlife, we should have wildlife corridors. Some parts of the country where the agricultural value of the land is lower might opt to do more of these environmental schemes—

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the set-aside argument. Do we get value for money in greening with set-aside, counterbalancing the fact that we are taking out a lot of land that could be used for food production? There is a moral duty to produce food as well as taking land out for so-called environmental set-aside.

[George Eustice]

That is right. The environmental stewardship schemes in pillar two are much more proactive about encouraging wildlife and improving biodiversity, whereas the problem with set-aside is that it becomes something that has to be done and everyone finds all sorts of ways around the rules so that, for instance, they can graze a particular type of goat on the land and get away with it. There is an issue with the bureaucratic system of set-aside.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton also alluded to the crop rotation requirement. Anyone who has been a farmer, as I once was, knows that crop rotation is a good thing. A farmer who farms without rotating their crops, particularly in the arable or vegetable sectors, will soon run into problems, such as crop disease, which causes a great deal more expense than any subsidy would have been worth. I question the value of insisting, in the latest proposals, that each farmholding must grow three crops. It proves that whoever came up with the idea is not a farmer; they are a bureaucrat. One could grow three brassicas—cabbage, oilseed rape and cauliflower—which would satisfy the three-crop rule, but the farmer would have clubroot disease in all those crops within two or three years.

I understand why some would regard the proposal to cap subsidies to individual farmholdings as superficially attractive; they think, “Why should we give a huge amount of money to very large farms?” However, no one has thought through the likely impact. Large farmholdings might break themselves into small farmholdings to get around the rules. There would be all sorts of avoidance problems, which would need a suite of anti-avoidance measures and people to ensure that farmers did not break up their holdings to circumvent the provisions. There would be major problems with that, so one must question what we are trying to achieve. If an objective of the CAP always has been and should be to promote food security and competitive farming, why would we want a policy designed to undermine the most productive and efficient farms in Europe and reward the least efficient? Although I understand why some would find the proposal superficially attractive, it is a mistake.

[George Eustice]

That is an interesting proposal, which I would like to look at more closely. I have previously argued that we could develop a system in which environmental obligations became transferable in some regards. The lettuce grower on the Cambridgeshire fens, who has a model that getting the single farm payment is irrelevant to, might forgo the payment, which could instead go to a farmer on more marginal land in, let us say, Wales—I do not want to offend anyone with a Welsh background. Such schemes could therefore receive more investment.

A problem that we all recognise in the EU negotiating process, which I alluded to in my question to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, is that rather than going into negotiations saying, “What is the best possible agricultural policy we could design?” and “What is the optimum policy we could pursue?” we are always hamstrung by voices in DEFRA and the civil service that say, “You can’t do that because Denmark won’t agree. If you advance this idea France will reject it, and we will lose our allies in Poland and eastern Europe.” Everything about agricultural policy ends up being seen through the prism of an incredibly complicated 27-way negotiation, which frankly leads to a poverty of vision of what our agricultural policy could become. We instead plod along like a blinkered horse, trying to achieve what we can. It is all about the lowest common denominator, rather than genuinely successful and thoughtful policy. Pillar two is a classic case of that.

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

In the last Parliament, our Committee, before I was on it, criticised the Labour Government for arguing that we should phase out pillar one and have pillar two only, because it was not achievable and undermined our negotiating position. If we do not even articulate what we believe because we are concerned that doing so will undermine our negotiating position, there is a problem.

I would like a much looser CAP in future: a common policy about common objectives. We could set common objectives for improving animal welfare, safeguarding the environment, enhancing biodiversity and promoting food security. There could be much looser policies and arrangements centrally and much more decision making and responsibility for implementation devolved to national Governments.

[Neil Parish]

This will tempt my hon. Friend further from the topic of debate, but would a looser common agricultural policy, or an agriculture policy, be part of a new relationship that we might negotiate with Europe?

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Do not be tempted too far, Mr Eustice.