Bovine Tuberculosis
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
Bovine TB is having a devastating effect on many farm businesses and families. The situation is steadily getting worse—the number of animals slaughtered each year is unacceptable and more farms are affected as the disease spreads across the country. The area of England affected by bovine TB has grown from isolated pockets in the late 1980s to cover large areas of the West and South West of England. 6.4% of herds in England were under bovine TB restriction at the end of 2009. The figure was 14.3% in the South West. In 2009, over 25,000 cattle were slaughtered due to TB in England.
The cost to Government of controlling bovine TB in England was over £63 million in 2009-10 (excluding scientific research). These costs are rising year by year and there is a strong case for early effective action to turn this around. Furthermore this has been raised as a concern by others across Europe and we are under increasing pressure from the European Commission to strengthen our controls.
Eradicating bovine TB is our long-term goal, but it is clear that the approach to date has failed. We need to take additional measures urgently to stop the disease spreading and to start to reverse the rising trend. The farming industry, veterinary profession and Government need to work in partnership to achieve this.
There is no single solution to tackling bovine TB—we need to use every tool in the toolbox. Cattle measures will remain the foundation of our bovine TB control programme but we will not succeed in eliminating the disease in cattle unless we also tackle the disease in badgers. The science is clear, there is no doubt that badgers are a reservoir of the disease and transmit bovine TB to cattle. No other country in the world with a similar reservoir in wildlife has eradicated TB from cattle without stringent wildlife control measures.
That is why the coalition Government have committed, as part of a package of measures, to develop affordable options for a carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB in cattle. I am today launching a consultation on the Government’s proposed approach to badger control in England.
Badger culling has the potential to reduce bovine TB in cattle by rapidly reducing the overall number of infected badgers, thus reducing the rate of transmission of the disease to cattle. The main body of evidence on the impact badger culling has on incidence of bovine TB in cattle is the randomised badger culling trial (RBCT) which took place between 1998 and 2007. The results of this major Government-funded trial demonstrate that badger culling, done on a sufficient scale, in a widespread, co-ordinated and efficient way, and over a sustained period of time, would reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in high incidence areas. Analysis of the results covering the whole period from the beginning of culling to July 2010 show that the beneficial effects of culling persist over this time and that the initial detrimental effect seen at the edge of the culled area had disappeared by 12 to 18 months after culling stopped.
The proposal on which I am launching the consultation today is to issue licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enable farmers and landowners to cull badgers, at their own expense. Under existing arrangements farmers and landowners are already able to apply for licences to vaccinate badgers. Under the Government’s new proposal, they will be able to use vaccination either on its own or in combination with culling. The Government’s proposal will empower farmers to take control of reducing the risks of transmission from the wildlife reservoir at the local level.
Licences would be subject to strict criteria to ensure that the badger control measures are carried out effectively, humanely, and with high regard to animal welfare. This will include a requirement that any culling must take place over a minimum area of 150km2 so we can be confident it will have a net beneficial effect. This means that we would expect to receive licence applications from groups of famers and landowners rather than individuals. Applicants will also need to demonstrate that they have considered taking further steps to minimise the potential detrimental effect at the edge of a culling area. Culling licences will only permit culling by cage-trapping and shooting, and by shooting free-running badgers, carried out by trained, competent operators with the appropriate licences. We have ruled out gassing and snaring on the basis that we do not currently have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are humane and effective methods of culling.
I have looked carefully at the potential for using badger vaccination. Based on veterinary advice and the available scientific evidence my assessment is that vaccination will not be as effective as culling in quickly lowering the weight of infection in the badger population. Vaccination does not guarantee that all badgers are fully protected from infection and it would take some time to develop immunity within a local population. In addition, the fact that the first injectable badger vaccine was only licensed in March 2010 means that there is only very limited experience of using vaccination in the field and no hard evidence on the contribution badger vaccination would make to reducing the disease in cattle. However, vaccination is still likely to reduce disease risk and have greater disease control benefits than taking no action to tackle bovine TB in badgers. In addition, when used in combination with culling, vaccination could help to mitigate the perturbation effects of culling.
The Government’s highest priority are to reduce the deficit and it is vital that any new policy is affordable. This is why we expect the farming industry to bear the direct costs of badger control. Government will fund the licensing operation and monitor the impacts of the policy.
I do not approach these issues lightly. No one wants to kill badgers, but the scientific evidence and veterinary advice clearly suggests that this is the quickest and most effective way to bring down the weight of infection in the badger population and in turn reduce the rate of transmission of bovine TB to cattle. We also do not want to see culling for longer than is necessary and we intend to review how the policy is working after four years.
I have met with the Badger trust and separately with other interested stakeholders to explain the evidence and rationale behind the proposal. All have been offered the opportunity to discuss the consultation in further detail with DEFRA.
The consultation is available on DEFRA’s website (www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/tb-control-measures/index.htm) from today and will close on 8 December 2010. Copies are also available in the Libraries of both Houses. A decision on this policy will be made early in 2011, taking account of views provided during this consultation, and the available scientific and economic evidence.
The consultation document also highlights that we are planning a number of changes to existing cattle measures to ensure that that they are better targeted on the basis of disease risk. Most existing cattle measures will remain firmly in place; in some cases we will be looking to tighten controls where we know there is a higher disease risk; and in some cases we will be looking to reduce burdens on farmers but only where we are confident that this will not increase disease risk.
I am today publishing the report of a review of pre-movement testing which is available on the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/ atoz/tb/premovement/index.htm). This has concluded that the current policy has been successful in reducing bovine TB spread, provided a significant benefit for the taxpayer and a net benefit for the farming industry. The pre-movement testing policy will therefore remain in place, though we plan to look again at the current exemptions to see whether they are still necessary.
We will be making some minor changes to TB testing with immediate effect. These include reducing the testing of new and reformed herds, stopping the testing of young calves, rationalising post-breakdown testing in low-risk herds where bovine TB is not confirmed and rationalising the testing of herds neighbouring a confirmed TB breakdown. These changes will reduce costs to the taxpayer and the burden on famers without increasing disease risk, and will ensure we are not gold-plating EU legal requirements.
Over the next few months I also intend to make changes to TB terminology, strengthen controls on high risk unconfirmed breakdowns, reduce the number of tracing tests and extend the use of gamma interferon testing to all confirmed breakdown herds in the two yearly testing areas. And I will ensure better support for TB restricted cattle farmers by enhancing their options for selling surplus stock. Further details of these changes will be announced in due course.
The coalition Government are committed to dealing with this terrible disease and reducing its burden on farmers and the taxpayer as quickly as possible. A decision on our approach will be taken following the consultation on badger control being launched today. I intend to publish a comprehensive and balanced bovine TB eradication programme early in 2011.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
5. What steps her Department is taking to promote farm animal welfare.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The coalition Government are committed to achieving high standards of animal welfare and are working through the detail of several policies to ensure that we accomplish this.
Chris Williamson
Does the Minister’s refusal to name a date for the abolition of beak trimming not demonstrate the Government’s failure to prioritise animal welfare?
Mr Paice
That is complete nonsense. As the hon. Gentleman should know, the date is already enshrined in law. The question is whether we seek to change that. To suggest that I have not set a date is nonsense, because his Government set that date. But we are considering representations, as did my predecessor, about whether to change that date. One of the underlying factors, not just on this but throughout animal welfare, is the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is the body set up to advise the Government, and I think the cross-party view is that it is a very worthy organisation. We take its views strongly into account as we consider this matter.
Ian Lucas
As a former Minister, I have seen photographs of the terrible consequences of some of the types of game bird farming that occur. Supported by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and other animal welfare groups, the previous Government brought forward legislation to improve the position. Why is it that this Government are determined to reverse that legislation and cause unnecessary suffering to game birds?
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), does my hon. Friend agree that, for those people concerned about the issue of beak trimming, the worst possible outcome from an animal welfare point of view would be that we end up with legislation that resulted in exporting animal welfare concerns—and jobs—to other countries? That would surely be a far worse outcome.
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The sad reality is that chickens will feather-peck and adopt cannibalism in any circumstances, including in large free-range facilities. The challenge with which we have to wrestle is whether or not debeaking is a bigger or lesser welfare issue than the consequences of not debeaking. The Government want to see an end to debeaking and we will achieve that, but we have to ensure that we do not make the situation worse in the process.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) hinted, we have some of the highest farm animal welfare standards in the world. Does the Minister agree that unnaturally increasing those would have two results? First, we would import food from places with far lower standards than we have here, and secondly, that would put perfectly good farmers in this country out of business.
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and we have learned the lesson. I accept that it was a Conservative Government who banned stalls and tethers in the pig industry, and we saw over the following 10 years a halving of the domestic pig industry while we continued to import pigmeat produced under the very systems that we had banned. That is why, alongside our determination to raise animal welfare standards in this country, we must also try to raise them at least across Europe.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions she has had on the use of wild animals in circuses.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The Department is currently reviewing the summary of the responses received in response to the consultation held on that issue. Lord Henley has met representatives of the circus industry and animal welfare organisations to discuss this issue further. Following his meeting, he requested further information from the industry, which he has now received. He anticipates that the review will be completed shortly and a response to the consultation will be published later this autumn.
Katy Clark
The Minister will be aware that in the consultation 94% of respondents said they supported the ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, and the previous Government said they were minded to go ahead with that ban. There is great concern about the delay in this matter. I know that autumn in this place really means Christmas, so may I urge him to make a decision as soon as possible so that there is no more delay?
Mr Paice
As the House has returned in the first week of September, I am not sure that the hon. Lady is right to refer to Christmas. However, I will tell my noble Friend of her words. He is considering the results of the consultation and that further information, and I am well aware of the response to the consultation and my predecessor’s mindful remarks, to which she referred. However, other issues have to be addressed, not least that of the definition of a circus and how we distinguish that from other forms of performance, such as in films or theatre.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Does the Minister sincerely believe that exotic animals being forced to dance and do tricks is natural? Bearing in mind that very few animal circuses are now left, surely the best thing is to abolish them, which the last Government failed to do but had promised to do while in opposition.
Mr Paice
The direct answer is no, I do not think it is right for large animals, in particular, to be forced to perform acts for people’s entertainment. I do not think that is right. However, the role of Government is to look at the whole picture. One issue that we have to address is the fact that, if we ban wild animals, we will ban not just elephants and big cats, but snakes and all sorts of things that might be present in a circus and which might be perfectly reasonable. A lot of issues have to be addressed, but my noble Friend is considering them and will make an announcement later.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
6. What steps her Department is taking to encourage the procurement of food of British origin by the public sector.
George Freeman
Can the Minister give some reassurance to farmers in my Mid Norfolk constituency who are still struggling as a result of the non-payment, late payment or part payment of their single farm payments? This is having a serious impact on their cash flow, and it is often the result of slow interdepartmental communications on issues such as land transfer.
Mr Paice
As my hon. Friend knows, I made a statement to the House in July about the Rural Payments Agency, following the outrageous and unbelievable damnation in the report by David Lane on the agency’s operations. I have taken the chair of the oversight board, and we have appointed an interim chief executive while we search for a new one who is able to make that organisation fit for purpose. It is our determination to ensure that farmers in Mid Norfolk and everywhere else are paid accurately and on time.
Julian Smith
Hill farmers are facing significant challenges caused by the previous Government’s scrapping of the hill farm allowance, and by the bureaucracy involved in its replacement. Will the Minister meet me to discuss specific cases in Skipton and Ripon some time in the near future?
Mr Paice
Of course I would be very happy to speak to my hon. Friend on this subject, and I appreciate the point that he is making. The upland entry level stewardship scheme is basically a very good scheme; I would not dissent from that—[Interruption.] I am not going to criticise the basis of the scheme, but my hon. Friend is right to say that some aspects of it are too bureaucratic and difficult to access, particularly when issues between landlords and tenants or issues of common land are involved. I am happy to try to address that.
Sajid Javid
Farmers in my constituency of Bromsgrove rightly abide by EU regulations, including those that are frankly unhelpful to the farming industry. The Minister might know that farmers in other EU countries often ignore those same regulations, and attract little or no sanction from the authorities in those countries. Will he reassure us that he is aware of this issue and that his Department is doing all it can to make it better?
Mr Paice
I am very much aware of the belief in many parts of the British farming industry that regulations are not applied elsewhere in Europe. I am going to be completely honest, as the House would expect, and say that I think some of those stories are slightly exaggerated. I have many friends and contacts in the farming industry elsewhere in Europe, and they complain just as vigorously about this. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend’s fundamental point is absolutely right. When a regulation is passed by Europe, it should be implemented and enforced equally across the whole of the Community, if we believe in fair trade and a single market.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Does the Minister think that the Agricultural Wages Board constitutes a burden or protection for vulnerable workers?
Mr Paice
We have already announced our intention to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which has gone unchanged for the past 50-plus years. It is entirely inflexible and unable to face up to modern needs. For example, a farmer is not even allowed to pay a worker a salary under the Agricultural Wages Order, which is nonsensical. We now have the minimum wage legislation, and it is only right that we should bring agricultural legislation into line with the rest.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
As we have just heard, the Secretary of State announced in July the plan to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which sets terms and conditions in an industry where pay is low. That is a step that, as the House will recall, even Baroness Thatcher shied away from. Will the Minister try to explain why setting wage rates of between £5.95 an hour—which is only just above the minimum wage—and £8.88 an hour constitutes the burden of which he speaks? Where is the evidence for that?
Mr Paice
The issue is one of inflexibility, because of the wages orders implemented through the Agricultural Wages Board. The right hon. Gentleman has just made the point that the minimum wage for agriculture is 2p an hour more than the national minimum wage, so what is the point of having a whole superstructure of an Agricultural Wages Board for the sake of 2p an hour? That question answers itself. The right hon. Gentleman talks about who is responsible for abolition, but he should remember that it was Labour policy to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board and the Government were forced to rescind it by the Warwick agreement when they were in hock to the Liberals—[Interruption.]—I mean the trade unions.
Hilary Benn
There we have it—we see the burden under which the Minister is having to labour! That was no justification at all, because as the Minister is well aware, grades 2 to 6 will not be covered by the minimum wage legislation, and what about overtime rates and standby and what about bereavement leave? Does the coalition have something against the Agricultural Wages Board providing an entitlement to bereavement leave for farm workers? When will the Minister admit that all this talk about flexibility and so forth is nothing more than a smokescreen for a shabby little plan to cut the wages of agricultural workers?
Mr Paice
That just demonstrates how behind the times the right hon. Gentleman really is. In today’s modern economy, we must have flexibility. We do not have wages boards for other sectors. His Government never brought back any of those abolished by the previous Conservative Government. If this system is so wonderful, why did Labour not bring any of those back? The answer is that at least some of his colleagues recognised the need for that flexibility. The reality is that the industry should make its own decisions in negotiations with its workers in tandem with the advice of the National Farmers Union.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
As the Minister is in hock to the Liberals, he will be aware of our commitment to landscape and biodiversity, including hedgerows. In reviewing the regulatory burden, will he ensure that the taskforce considers the new report on hedgerows by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which suggests that regulations have helped, that it is necessary and possible to simplify them and that we should enhance the protection of hedgerows in the countryside?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I accept his comment. The point of deregulation and the role of the taskforce is to simplify the burden, not to lower standards. I cannot repeat that too many times. We have no intention of reducing the protection for hedgerows. I was as concerned as my hon. Friend about them, but if we look at the issue carefully, we will find that many of the hedgerows have been removed not by farmers—in fact, they have been planting a lot more in the last decade—but as a result of development and local government actions.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
10. What recent discussions she has had with the European Commission on mackerel quota.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
18. What recent representations she has received on beak-trimming of laying hens.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
DEFRA completed a consultation exercise in April on an amendment to the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007, introduced by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), which would remove the total ban on beak-trimming of laying hens to allow routine trimming to be carried out by the infrared technique only. All comments are currently being considered, and a summary will be published on the DEFRA website.
Mr Hepburn
May I urge the Minister to ignore the protests of the United Kingdom poultry industry, which is driven solely by profit, listen instead to the humane voices of those poultry farmers who have never engaged in this barbaric practice, and implement a ban from January?
Mr Paice
There is nothing wrong with having profit as a motive. That is the way in which this country operates.
As I said earlier, we must ensure that we do not make the welfare situation worse. Very few poultry producers do not de-beak their poultry, because of poultry’s natural inclination towards feather-pecking and cannibalism. The Government want to see an end to it, but we are determined not to make the situation worse in the short term. That is why we are considering the results of the consultation carefully.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
20. What steps her Department plans to take to encourage local sourcing of food by supermarkets.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
T2. Could the Secretary of State outline plans to reduce the number of organisations carrying out farm visits and inspections, which in south-west Norfolk includes Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Rural Payments Agency, as that places both a burden on farmers and a cost on the Exchequer?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend, who represents, as I do, some of the most fertile land in the country in south-west Norfolk. She is absolutely right about the problem of multiple inspections. One of the challenges I have laid down to the Macdonald inquiry is to come up with a risk-based system and to merge the different inspection arrangements. By doing so, we can bring this all together and start to trust farmers. Concentrating inspections on a risk-based system will enable us to address those who are likely to be abusing the arrangements while trusting the vast majority who will not.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T4. if she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities. At the last International Whaling Commission meeting, a proposal that would have legitimised commercial whaling for the first time in decades was rightly defeated. However, concerns were expressed about corruption and vote rigging prior to that meeting. Will the Government say what steps they are taking to eradicate those concerns?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The coalition agreement stipulates that the Government will legislate to ban both the import and possession of illegal timber. The Secretary of State has recently made it clear that that commitment has been dropped in favour of the lesser European proposals. Has she discussed that with her coalition partners, and if so, with whom and when?
Mr Paice
We discuss these issues throughout the coalition regularly, so I cannot give a long list of “with whom and when”. But it is perfectly correct that we believe that the EU due diligence regulation does fulfil the expectations and desires of the coalition on stopping the trade of illegally forested timber throughout the EU. Once formal agreement is reached in the next few weeks, we expect every country to adopt a very robust implementation process to ensure that it actually has teeth.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T5. Up and down the country, local authorities are spending millions of pounds on introducing new waste incinerators. The authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk are spending £160 million each, whereas the authority in neighbouring Cambridgeshire is meeting its EU landfill directive obligations, using different technology, for just £41 million. Is the Minister confident and satisfied that incineration is appropriate technology for the 21st century and is giving good value for money?
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
T6. Although arable farmers in Romney Marsh in my constituency have had an excellent harvest, what is left of the dairy sector continues to struggle, particularly with high fuel and feed costs. What measures are being considered by the Minister’s Department to support and sustain the UK dairy industry?
Mr Paice
I entirely follow my hon. Friend’s concerns. The dairy industry has fallen back dramatically over the past few years, but I am delighted to say that in the past few months there has been a small upturn in production, which is good. It is quite clear that the industry has a long way to go in some quarters. What concerns me most is the huge range of prices being received by dairy producers—in the liquid retail trade, prices are very high but for those in the processed area of trade, they are very low. The role of Government is to help farming to become more competitive, and that is what we are determined to do.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Do the Government intend to extend their big society ethos by keeping the previous Labour Government’s commitment to completing the English coastal path?
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
T7. D. A. Clough and Son in my constituency has 12,000 laying hens and employs 10 people. Will the Minister reassure those people that he will vigorously oppose any attempt made by other EU member states to weaken their obligations under the laying hens directive, which would disadvantage British producers? Will he also consider measures to support British producers who are struggling to meet the costs of compliance?
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend puts her finger on an extremely important issue. The British egg industry has invested a very large sum of money in bringing its production systems in line with the obligations that will come in at the end of next year. It is a great tragedy that some other European countries appear not to have done that. We are delighted that the European Commission rejected the application for a derogation by Poland and we will be very robust in supporting the Commission against any other applications for a derogation. If the situation is maintained, we will press the Commission to ensure that there is protection for those farmers who have made that investment.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of the concerns that are being raised about scallop dredging and the devastating impact that it has had on certain parts of the marine environment, particularly in the Clyde. Is any consideration being given to banning such practices or placing restrictions on them?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Further to the response that the Secretary of State gave me earlier, does she believe that keeping cows indoors in cubicles for more than 10 months of the year when they are in milk, milking them three times a day instead of the usual two and their having an average lifespan of five years, as opposed to the natural lifespan of 20 years, is compatible with good animal welfare standards?
Mr Paice
I suggest that the hon. Lady should learn a little about dairy farming. In the natural world a calf suckles its mother many times a day, so milking three times a day instead of twice is hardly a welfare problem.
Of course I recognise that there are concerns about that issue—that is why DEFRA has commissioned a three-year study by the university of Edinburgh into housing cattle all year round. That report is due next year and obviously we will study it carefully.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
T9. I am sure that the Minister will agree that our agricultural and food research sector is a vital platform for both sustainable production and unlocking huge new markets around the world. Will the Department comment on the recent Taylor review and the excellent recommendations it has made?
Private Sewers and Lateral Drains (Ownership Transfer)
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I am pleased to announce that on 26 August 2010 I published for consultation draft regulations to effect the transfer of private sewers into the ownership of the statutory sewerage companies in England from 2011. The consultation paper sets out the Government’s intentions and provides an opportunity for interested parties to respond with their views on the accompanying draft regulations. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
The decision to transfer follows an extensive review of the arrangements for private sewers and laterals in England and Wales. Existing private sewers and lateral drains (that part of the drain that extends beyond the property boundary) are currently the responsibility of the owners of the properties they serve. This fact typically comes as a surprise to owners, who usually assume that the sewer and lateral drain serving their property are the responsibility of the local sewerage company or local authority.
Private sewers serve more than one property so ownership is shared and usually a large extent of the sewer will lie outside a property’s own boundary. Lateral drains serve one property but always lie outside the property’s boundary. Transfer provides the only comprehensive solution to a range of private sewer and lateral drain problems affecting householders. These include a lack of awareness of owners’ responsibilities and unwillingness or inability to co-ordinate or contribute to potentially high costs of maintenance and repair. It will bring simplification and clarity to owners, local authorities and sewerage companies, all of whom typically become involved when these problems arise.
Transfer will also significantly help address a lack of integrated management of the sewerage network as a whole, and provide much greater efficiency of effort, environmental stewardship and expenditure at a time when climate change impacts and housing growth may impose greater demands on urban drainage systems. Having a much greater proportion of the sewer network in the management of the water and sewerage companies means they will be able to plan maintenance and resolve problems more easily and comprehensively. The Government are also taking steps to stem the proliferation of newly built private sewers in order to prevent the recurrence of existing problems in the future.
Subject to approval of the regulations, transfer will take place from October 2011 in order to allow the water industry and those businesses operating around it sufficient time to prepare for transfer. The costs of necessary future improvement and maintenance will, post transfer, be met by an increase in the sewerage element of bills for the generality of customers. Although these costs cannot be stated now with certainty, Ofwat estimates indicative increases of around £3 to £14 per annum across the water and sewerage companies in England.
Review of Controls on the Import of Animal Products 2009-10
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
As required under the Animal Health Act 1981 (as amended by the Animal Health Act 2002) the Government will publish today a review of controls on the import of animal products for the financial year 2009-10. As the new Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, I welcome the opportunity to report on the efforts of DEFRA and other Government Departments and agencies during the past year to reduce the risk of disease entering the country via imports of animal products.
Imports of animal products from outside the European Union (EU) bring with them the risk of animal diseases which, as we know, could potentially introduce disease to our livestock and crops and to the environment. The risk can also be to public health—diseases such as highly pathogenic avian influenza type H5N1 can infect humans and are of serious public concern—and also be high economic cost as we know from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in 2001 which is estimated to have cost £3 billion relating to agriculture and the food chain.
Effective enforcement and raising public awareness are therefore key to ensuring that we meet our objective.
Controls are already in place to carry out veterinary checks on legally imported animal products from non-EU countries. UK Border Agency (UKBA) delivers a flexible, risk based enforcement strategy to prevent illegal imports including using information from DEFRA on the entry routes that pose the greatest threat of introducing animal disease.
DEFRA with UKBA and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) have undertaken a focused publicity campaign as part of the overall communications strategy—inland within GB, at the border and also overseas. During this last year we have seen the re-launch of the personal food imports campaigns for general travellers in October 2009 and for the black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in November 2009.
The changes to the EU personal import rules in May 2009, in particular an increase to the personal concession amount allowed for fish, has enabled UKBA to refocus deployments to target the high risk routes for illegal meat and dairy products carried by incoming travellers more effectively. The number of seizures of illegal imports of animal products have therefore shown a 3% increase this year with seizures of meat and dairy products up by 14% and 45% respectively.
We can never have a zero risk but we monitor and assess the changing threats from around the world (such as the evolving FMD situation in South East Asia), and work with UKBA and other enforcement partners to ensure that our enforcement activity is targeted at the current risks.
Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, on the DEFRA personal food imports website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/personal- import/index.htm), and sent to DEFRA customers for information giving them the opportunity to provide their feedback. Hard copies will also be available on request.
Food and Environment Research Agency and Animal Health
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The 2009-10 annual report and accounts for the Food and Environment Research Agency and Animal Health will be laid before Parliament today.
Dangerous Dogs
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) on securing this debate on an important subject. I assume that it is her first Adjournment debate, and she has got off lucky; my first Adjournment debate was called at 3.15 in the morning, so this is early by comparison.
I fully understand the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. Members who, like me, represent more rural constituencies do not see the problem as much as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) do. Nevertheless, we are very aware of it. I respond directly to the challenge of the hon. Gentleman: the issue of dangerous dogs falls squarely within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He is right about cross-cutting with other Departments. My noble Friend Lord Henley is directly responsible for that part of the Department’s activities, although, as I shall try to demonstrate, there are areas on which we work closely with other Departments.
We take the issue seriously—so much so that the coalition agreement makes an explicit commitment to tackling the problem. Both hon. Members said that there are many strands to the problem. There is the irresponsible ownership—at the lesser end, but still a serious issue—and there is the clear problem of dogs being used to intimidate and as part of the commission of crime. Furthermore, there is organised dog fighting. All those issues have a knock-on effect on the welfare of the dogs, let alone all the other problems that they cause society.
Most of us find it difficult to understand why people would want to keep a dog, particularly one of the more vicious breeds, as a status symbol. The need that those people feel to have such a dog alongside them to bolster their image is probably a sign of their inadequacy. Nevertheless, it happens and we have to address it.
Many suggestions have been made. As hon. Members must be aware, the previous Government commissioned a consultation on the problem. That period has finished and we are analysing the results, which we will publish. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that she does not necessarily believe that the issue requires more legislation. She made a couple of suggestions, which I shall come to. As I shall try to describe, there is a plethora of legislation on the matter—too much, some would argue. It is often a matter of enforcement. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has become a bit of byword for hasty legislation, but the reality is that in the 19 years since it was passed nobody has come forward with a comprehensive alternative.
Martin Horwood
I am grateful, given the hour. Is the Minister aware of the Bill proposed in another place by my noble Friend Lord Redesdale, which is intended to tackle some of the issues to do with ownership and microchipping, while shifting comprehensively away from the specific list of obscure breeds towards the deeds and behaviour of the dog, and indeed the owner, which seems to get to the crux of the issue that the hon. Lady rightly identified? What is his view of that proposed legislation?
Mr Paice
We are very much aware of Lord Redesdale’s Bill. My noble Friend Lord Henley is looking at it very carefully and trying to work with Lord Redesdale on it. We have our doubts about some aspects, but I recognise that it is a noble attempt to try to deal with the problem.
Part of the problem has been the lack of enforcement across the country. We clearly want to see better enforcement, and we have provided better guidance and funding for training in police forces. Both hon. Members who spoke referred to the Metropolitan police, who have their specialist status dogs unit to target the problem. That has resulted in more dogs being seized year on year in the London area. I understand that between April 2004 and April 2005, just 42 dogs were seized, by 2008-2009 the figure had risen to 719, and it is expected that in the past year up to April 2010 the figure will have been 1,100. That dramatic increase demonstrates the importance of the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton referred to council housing leases and social landlords. Earlier this year, the Department for Communities and Local Government published guidance for social landlords entitled, “Tackling anti-social behaviour: Tools and powers—toolkit for social landlords”. That includes the powers available under current legislation for social landlords to tackle dangerous dogs. More recently, DEFRA facilitated the production of guidance for magistrates courts designed to help to speed up cases involving dangerous dogs. Last year, DEFRA issued widely welcomed guidance aimed at enforcers of the legislation. It was written in association with the police and the RSPCA, as well as some local authorities, to set out the law in detail and provide advice.
I want briefly to refer to the existing legislation and then address some of the points that may take us forward. The 1991 Act provides the police with powers to take action when any dog becomes dangerously out of control in a public place or a place where it has no right to be. Offences under that legislation have risen considerably. The Act also prohibits the keeping of certain types of dog. I understand what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said about the problems of specific breeds. However, the fact is that in 2004, 17 people were successfully prosecuted for that offence, and by 2008 that figure had risen to 115. The maximum penalty for keeping a keeping a prohibited type of dog is six months imprisonment, a fine of £5,000, or both.
Importantly, the police have also said that the prohibition of certain types of dog is useful in tackling organised dog fighting, as it is predominantly pit bull terriers that are used. I hear the point made by my hon. Friend about the problem being the owner, not the dog, but there is a bit of a caveat to that—certain dogs are far more predisposed to aggression. Why else does everybody want to use a pit bull? Clearly it is easier to use them; we do not see many fighting chihuahuas around the countryside.
Mr Paice
No, I cannot, I am sorry. I am really tight for time.
The 1991 Act strengthened the powers available to magistrates courts to place controls on dogs under the Dogs Act 1871. Those controls can be about muzzling a dog, keeping it on a lead, excluding it from specific places or having it neutered. The maximum penalty for failing to comply is £5,000.
The Offences Against the Person Act was passed back in 1861 but is still valid because of the point that the hon. Member for Ealing North made—it can be used in a situation in which people use a dog as a weapon. The maximum penalty is five years in prison. There is also the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.
The consultation that was carried out recently addressed a range of issues, such as extending the current criminal offence in the 1991 Act of allowing a dog of any type or breed to become dangerously out of control to private property where a dog has a right to be but where it may well still be a danger to young children. There is also the serious problem of attacks on public workers, particularly postal workers, in gardens or drives. It also invited comments on whether the prohibition of certain types of dog should be repealed, as we have discussed, or extended to other breeds.
The idea of compulsory insurance was given short shrift. The then Government put the matter in the consultation and rightly decided quickly that it was not the right way forward. People’s advice and views were requested on the introduction of dog control notices, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has indicated that improvement notices have been successful. It considers that dog control notices could also work well.
Some people advocate compulsory microchipping. At the moment, our view is that as with licensing, the people whom we are trying to address would not do it. One could argue that dogs found without a microchip would be destroyed, but we would end up with the serious problem of having to destroy a large number of dogs. Again, the majority would be paying for the sins of the minority.
Finally, my hon. Friend proposed that anyone convicted of a violent or drug-related offence should not be allowed to have control of a dog. That is clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I will try to ensure that it is aware of the suggestion and gives it the consideration that it merits.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the whole Government take the matter very seriously. We are aware of the concerns and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing them to the attention of the House. I promise her that we will not let the matter slip.
Question put and agreed to.
Rural Payments Agency
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) delivers £2.3 billion of common agricultural policy payments each year to the businesses and organisations which produce our food and maintain our rural economy, cultural heritage and environmental landscapes. Farmers applying for the single payment scheme payments from the Rural Payments Agency have experienced a turbulent few years. They deserve a better quality of service.
I am today publishing an independent review of RPA, completed by David Lane working with Deloitte, PWC and Gartner, and the Government response to it. Copies of the executive summary have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The related reports are available on the DEFRA website.
The review was commissioned by DEFRA in September 2009 and gives an evidenced view of RPA’s current state as well as preparations for the EU-wide common agricultural policy negotiations, expected to conclude in 2013. The review’s key findings are that:
RPA’s finance function and controls need to be strengthened, and that it was particularly concerning that the agency management could not form a view on the value of the debts that were on RPA’s accounts;
there are significant opportunities to provide a better quality of customer service and deliver efficiencies through improvements in the operational processes;
that a significant opportunity exists in developing new IT systems for post 2013, learning from the rushed implementation in 2005;
there was a lack of appropriate governance and oversight from within RPA’s leadership and DEFRA; and
there are considerable gaps in the organisation’s controls and leadership capability.
Since the well-publicised problems in implementing the single payment scheme in 2005-06, RPA has made significant improvements, particularly in the speed of making payments to customers. This has been achieved against a backdrop of a poorly specified IT system, which constrained the ability of staff to get the job done, and reducing staff numbers. However, there is significantly more to be done. The administrative cost per payment is too high and where there are problems, it takes too long for them to be resolved.
I will not allow this state of affairs to continue. We are moving into a new and challenging phase for RPA and the review highlights how important it is that RPA has the right capability in place to lead the organisation through this period and the right degree of oversight from DEFRA. I will personally drive forward progress by chairing a new oversight board. As announced last week, the chief executive is leaving at the end of July and we will seek a new chief executive from the widest available pool. In the meantime an interim chief executive has been appointed and I will make an announcement shortly on this. The interim chief operating officer and interim finance director appointments are due to end shortly. This gives the new chief executive the opportunity to build a leadership team to deal with the new challenges. I will work with the RPA management team to deliver the standard of services our customers deserve.
The key challenge for the agency is to deliver a better quality of service, while reducing the operating costs so that both farmers and taxpayers are getting a better deal. It is also to build a strong organisation that is ready to deal with the changes that are likely to come with the reform of the common agricultural policy. My priorities for action are:
Delivering improvements to customer experience through improving the accuracy of the agency’s information, while maintaining an acceptable speed of payments.
Ensuring that the agency is focused on improving value for money, aggressively pursuing efficiencies while balancing the need to provide a good service to farmers.
Ensuring that the agency becomes a more efficient operation, getting the basics like financial controls and accounts right.
Making essential preparations for the new schemes which are likely to be introduced after the 2013 common agricultural policy reform negotiations.
In the current financial climate, RPA will need to look radically at its operations and drive for efficiencies. Following the principle that Government should only do those things which only Government can do, we are examining how parts of the DEFRA network’s assets could be marketed or be run better through other partners, while protecting key DEFRA outcomes. In keeping with this principle, the review identified a number of options including outsourcing parts of or all of RPA’s operations. These options will be evaluated and considered by my RPA oversight board. There will need to be prioritisation between those investments which we can make, and focusing attention on those areas which will have the greatest impact.
I thank the review team for this report. I will be working with the oversight board, RPA staff, customers and Members of Parliament to ensure that all of the recommendations are carefully considered and action is taken. I will update the House on progress at appropriate times.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Paice Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
2. What plans her Department has to reduce the level of regulation on farmers; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
As I announced at the cereals event on 9 June, bureaucratic burdens on the food and farming industry will be scrutinized by a new industry-led taskforce on food and farming regulation. The taskforce will identify ways to reduce regulatory burdens by trusting farmers to deliver the necessary outcomes, rather than telling them how to do so. It will also advise on how best to achieve a risk-based system of inspection in future.
Mark Menzies
I am sure that many farmers in Fylde will take comfort from the work that is being done. To what extent is the Minister’s Department liaising with EU member states regarding further reducing the regulatory burden?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whom I welcome to his first DEFRA questions. He is absolutely right: a huge amount of DEFRA regulations emanate from the European Union. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the Agriculture Commissioner and impressed upon him not only the measures I have announced, but the need for the whole EU to adopt a much more simplified approach to regulation and to concentrate on outcomes. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that that message went down very well with the Commissioner, who entirely endorsed that approach.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
Will the Minister guarantee that this rush into deregulation will not be at the expense of the health and safety of people working in agriculture, farmers themselves, their employees and the wider public? Will he guarantee a place for the trade unions on his taskforce?
Mr Paice
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have absolutely no intention of reducing standards. We in this country—particularly under the last Government—seem to have become obsessed with the view that to maintain standards, we must have high levels of intervention in how people comply with regulations. We have become obsessed with process. I can assure the House that we have absolutely no intention of allowing our standards to fall, be they in health and safety, food safety, pollution or anything else. We are focusing on reducing the burden on businesses regarding how they comply with such regulations by concentrating on whether they do.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his position. He will not be surprised to learn of my recent conversation with a farmer in South Westmorland who bought a bull from market to his farm and was then unable to move any sheep from a field two miles away because of the six-day movement rule. That made absolute sense during the foot and mouth crisis of 2001, but is now an unnecessary burden on the farming industry. When will the Minister scrap it?
Mr Paice
I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency I have visited; I have probably had the same farmer saying the same thing to me there, as well as farmers in many other places over the many years when I sat on the Opposition side of the House. I tend to share his doubts about the six-day rule, but the advice I have received so far is that there is a very sound reason for it. It will certainly be one of the issues considered by the taskforce and I hope that, along with other such provisions, it will recommend getting rid of the rule.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
May I associate this side of the House with the remarks of the Secretary of State about the late Peter Walker?
Regulation is very important in animal health, including in combating animal disease. Will the Minister therefore tell the House when a decision was taken that there would be a targeted cull of badgers in hotspot areas?
Mr Paice
As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the commitment appears in the coalition agreement, so, bearing in mind that we have a new Government, I suppose the answer to his question is that the decision was taken when that coalition agreement was drawn up. Until that point, there were measures being proposed by the Conservative party and by the Liberal Democrats. There is a great deal of science concerning bovine TB. We are looking at all of it and drawing up our proposals, which we will publish and put out for consultation. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there is a valid case for addressing the reservoir in wildlife, including badgers, in this country, as has been done by every other country in the world.
Hilary Benn
If a decision has been taken that there will be a cull, which is what the Minister said at the Devon county show, why did he say in a written answer on 22 June that all the evidence would be considered “before taking a decision”? How will it help to deal with the disease when the two Ministers responsible appear to be saying completely different things?
Mr Paice
The former Secretary of State is desperately trying to create a division where none exists, because the situation is clear—in black and white, if I may use the phrase—in the coalition agreement. The considerations mentioned in the parliamentary answer to which he refers concern the details of how, where and who, along with all the other issues that have to be addressed in working out how to do a cull of badgers and how to integrate it with the badger vaccine deployment project.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
May I follow up an earlier question on the movement of animals? During the winter, a sheep farmer in Honiton had to fill in a form every time she moved her sheep in and out of a field for lambing because she did not own that field—it was not part of her holding. We have got to find ways of simplifying movement orders.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
3. What progress has been made on flood defence projects in the Chesterfield area since 2007; and if she will make a statement.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
6. What recent discussions she has had on the objectives of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The Government are strongly committed to the Campaign for the Farmed Environment, which we consider to be an excellent example of the farming industry taking responsibility for its environmental impacts. The Secretary of State and I met a number of senior representatives of the campaign’s partner organisations at the recent cereals event and discussed aspects of the campaign with them, and we look forward to receiving the progress report later this month.
Mr Jones
I thank the Minister for his response. He may be interested to know that I shall be attending an event to promote the Campaign for the Farmed Environment in my constituency this very evening. Can he say what the level of uptake has been for the campaign across the country?
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
8. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the Health Protection Agency’s investigation of the potential for mushroom composting to cause or exacerbate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The local primary care trust has been investigating the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised previously about possible health impacts from the mushroom composting plant in his constituency. I understand that its report is due in the next few weeks.
Mr Paice
I cannot forecast what might come out in the report, so I am not going to make any commitments as to what the Government might do afterwards, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as I am sure he is aware, the preliminary findings of the PCT investigation show no links between the mushroom composting plant and incidences of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the locality.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
12. If she will discuss with trade unions measures to reduce the adverse effect on the natural environment of workplace activity.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
15. What recent discussions she has had with the farming industry and other interested parties on the Animal Health Agency; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
As has been mentioned already, the most urgent issue in animal health and welfare is bovine TB. I have reviewed the badger vaccine deployment project and have decided to proceed with one area near Stroud for the time being, in order to help maintain the capacity to train lay vaccinators. Badger sett surveys will also be completed in the Gloucester area, near Cheltenham. That change reflects the need to consider all our public expenditure carefully.
The previous Government appointed Rosemary Radcliffe to examine options for responsibility and cost-sharing for animal disease control. Unlike that Government, though, we will await the outcome of that report, as it may well include options for the agency’s future. I have had a number of discussions regarding that review.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the Minister for that answer, and may I also add my welcome to some fellow meat-eaters in the Front Bench team for this particular portfolio? I want to emphasise how important animal welfare is for farmers in West Worcestershire. A vet came to my constituency surgery recently and highlighted the fact that, while the AHA seemed to have spent a lot of time on management, computer systems and office work, it was not placing enough emphasis on its veterinary function. Does the Minister have any plans to tackle that?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I welcome her to this question session. She is absolutely right and, as part of our overall review of all arm’s length bodies, we are looking for the sorts of efficiencies to which she has referred. However, I can tell her that the AHA has already instituted a road map for change that should deliver a significant tranche of savings, and a much more efficient business as well.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
16. What plans she has for the future of the Rural Payments Agency.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
An independent review of the Rural Payments Agency, commissioned by DEFRA last autumn, has recently concluded. We will publish the recommendations of the review and our response to it shortly.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I wish him well in his work. As he knows well, each claim to the RPA costs £1,700, and the RPA has been characterised by mistakes and inefficiency throughout its years of operation. What reassurance can he give farmers in my constituency and throughout the country that those problems will improve?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think he knows that the impossible we can do at once, but miracles take a little longer, and putting the RPA right probably comes within the last part of that saying. I assure him that I am extremely determined to get a grip on the problems at the RPA; I am conscious, as I have made clear over recent years, of the problems and the service to many farmers, and we have to get it right. When I publish the review I will also put forward the measures that we propose to take to address them.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
24. What plans her Department has to reduce the level of regulation on farmers; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to Question 2.
Sajid Javid
I welcome those on the Front Bench to their new roles and I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Bromsgrove during the election campaign.
The Minister referred earlier to the review of EU regulations, but may I draw his attention to the fact that they are often not enforced by our major trading partners? While we enforce regulations harshly, many EU countries ignore them, so will the he consider that urgently?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very important question. There is a huge amount of concern that some EU countries are less vigorous in enforcing regulations, and it is one of the issues that the taskforce will want to look into. I would just add the caution that when one looks closely at a matter on the ground, it is not always as clear-cut as it appears. If he has a particular case in mind, I will be happy to look into it.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
25. What plans she has for the future of British Waterways.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say very gently to the hon. Gentleman and to other Members that topical questions in particular are supposed to be brief, and that a Member has a topical question—singular?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I shall try to reply with one answer. I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I would be very happy to visit his constituency, as I have done many times, and I am very conscious of the distress that the mistakes of the Rural Payments Agency caused to many farmers.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T2. Earlier this year, Nocton Dairies submitted an application for a factory farm for 8,000 cows in Lincolnshire, and said:“Cows do not belong in fields.”Now the pig farmer of the year 2009 has submitted an application for 26,000 pigs to be held in a factory farm in Derbyshire. Does the Minister agree that we should resist that increasing industrialisation of our food production?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for a question that tests many people, as she rightly identifies. I make two points. First, specific planning applications must, quite properly, fall to the local planning authority and are not for DEFRA Ministers to comment on. Secondly, on wider animal welfare issues, the coalition has made achieving the highest standards of animal welfare one of its absolute commitments. However, all the evidence is that management, rather than simple numbers, necessarily dictates the quality of animal welfare in any particular unit.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
T6. Does the Secretary of State understand the frustration of people who hear the European Commission for ever promise to reform the common agricultural policy, and Governments of all parties promise to get it reformed, when nothing ever happens? Does she not agree that the failure to reform the CAP, which costs this country £10 billion a year, is yet another perfect example of why we would be better off out of the European Union?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
T7. The electronic sheep tagging rules were introduced by the previous Government. Will the Minister review the practical operation of those hated rules? Traceability can surely be maintained without the unnecessary cost and bureaucratic burden on farmers and Government alike.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
T5. Will there be any cuts in taxpayers’ subsidies to farmers in 2011 and in the consequential four years?
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Will the Minister give the House an update on the health of bees in this country and on what future measures are planned to help the current situation?
Mr Paice
The whole House has always taken a great interest in bee health, and we were very critical when the previous Government initially planned to cut funding for it. My hon. Friend may be aware that this week, using a significant contribution from DEFRA, a £10 million research programme was launched on the whole issue of bees and other pollinators, because we recognise their value to the economy.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
What support can the Secretary of State’s Department give to traditional markets to encourage the sale of local produce?
Veterinary Medicines Directorate and Veterinary Laboratories Agency
James Paice Excerpts(14 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The 2009-10 annual report and accounts for each of the following was laid before Parliament today:
Veterinary Laboratories Agency
Veterinary Medicines Directorate
Lymington River
James Paice Excerpts(14 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I feel almost like a country parson reading the banns of marriage—“this being for the third time of asking”—given that this is the third time I have dragged a Minister to Westminster Hall to answer for the actions of the Government on the protection of the Lymington river.
Furthermore, as with the controversial actions of country parsons in respect of changing hymns and modern unpopular liturgies, I find that my own actions in my assiduous dedication to this task have proved equally unpopular. While I was going about my duties in Lymington on Friday, a charming but forceful lady took me aside and demanded to know why I was so “anti-ferry”. Actually, I am not “anti-ferry” at all. My starting point is that there is a critical need in both the Lymington and Yarmouth economies for the ferry service and I want to see that ferry service preserved. However, there are other interests that have to be balanced against those of the ferry service, not least the protection of the European Natura 2000 sites, the importance to the local economy of the yachting interest in Lymington, and indeed the long-term survival of Lymington as a harbour, which is protected by the local mud flats. The diminution of those mud flats poses a long-term threat to the future of Lymington. So, all those interests have to be balanced.
It is the law that provides protection and balance. The fact that we are now having a third Adjournment debate on this issue and that we have had two spats in court, both of which the Government lost, is down to the failure to implement the law properly. The Government gave all sorts of commitments in signing up to the relevant European directives, but then failed properly to transpose those directives into English law.
I do not want to repeat the entire history of this subject; those who are interested in it can read the Official Report of the two previous Adjournment debates. However, I shall give a potted history now. We have always been led to believe the received wisdom that the erosion of the Lymington salt marshes was an inevitable consequence of nature—“It’s the weather and there’s nothing we can do about it”. Of course, those salt marshes are vital to Lymington, and the Lymington harbour commissioners have come up with a plan worthy of our Victorian forebears in its engineering prowess. They are going to build a sea wall—a monument to King Canute—to hold back the waves and save at least some of the salt marsh. I am not qualified to say whether that plan will survive current economic realities or whether it will actually work.
However, as a consequence of this controversy, a number of studies have been carried out of bathymetric data—a subject on which I am uniquely unqualified to pontificate. I understand, however, that the findings of the Southampton university team who carried out one of those studies suggest that the salt marshes, if left to nature alone, would actually be accreting—growing and extending—and that it is only the introduction of the particular form of propulsion used by the Lymington ferry from the 1960s onwards that has led to the swift erosion of the salt marshes. That erosion has been even swifter since the introduction of the new “W”-class ferries, a development that has sparked the recent controversy.
These are issues well beyond my competence, as I said, but they are precisely those that must be clearly understood and examined in that appropriate assessment. A principal reason for the court’s determining that the new ferries had been unlawfully introduced on to the Lymington river was that Wightlink was its own competent authority for the determination of that appropriate assessment. Notwithstanding reams of assurances, in correspondence from Ministers and in parliamentary answers to my questions, that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was the appropriate authority, when it came to the crunch it turned out that because the Government had been so cack-handed in implementing the habitats directive, Wightlink was its own competent authority. The judge said it had shown a complete disregard for its public responsibilities, separating them from its own commercial interests, and that as a consequence it was absolutely invalid.
The question is what to do next. Wightlink has said it will rerun the appropriate assessment and, in addition, do a full environmental impact assessment. The difficulty is that Wightlink remains its own competent authority. Wightlink will still be judge and jury in its own court. Wightlink has said, “No, no. We’re going to form a new company—Wightlink CA, or Wightlink competent authority—to judge the appropriate assessment.” Key questions arise. How will the commercial interests of Wightlink CA be different from the commercial interests of Wightlink itself? Will it have a different board of directors? There is a clear need in these assessments for an independent referee.
Wightlink has said it will carry out a full environmental impact assessment. That is a huge undertaking, involving public consultation. It must consider the whole environment, including the increase in heavy goods vehicles traffic through the Forest to take advantage of the greater capacity of the ferries, especially as the bridge restrictions at the mouth of Lymington at the Ampress site mean that those lorries have to travel through the sensitive parts of the national park. All those issues give rise to great local concern about the impartiality of Wightlink, because it already has form on this matter. Why should we trust it now, given that the court could not trust it earlier?
When Wightlink announced that it would do an environmental impact assessment, it set out the details of how it was to be achieved, including the setting up of Wightlink CA, in a letter from its solicitors. The letter concludes by saying what the outcome would be before the assessments have begun. It states:
“Natural England have advised on a rate of erosion of the existing habitat areas in the European Sites that can, in their view, be attributed to the operation of the ‘W’ class ferries. The mitigation works will prevent loss of an equivalent or greater area of habitat (than the loss attributable to the ferries) elsewhere in the European Sites.”
There it is: it has already concluded that the mitigation works it is to undertake will compensate for any erosion. Before the assessments are undertaken to establish the rate of erosion and other facts, we have the conclusion that the mitigation works will take care of it. The conclusion has been announced before the studies have even begun.
Wightlink goes on, in a most extraordinary piece worthy of Alice in Wonderland, to say:
“The effect of the mitigation works is therefore to prevent an adverse effect on the European Sites by reference to their conservation objectives. Consequently, adverse effects on the integrity of the European Sites are avoided and the tests and approach under article 6(4) (and regulation 62 of the Habitat Regulations 2010) are not engaged. The mitigation works will prevent the harm occurring and consequently the works are appropriately considered mitigation and not compensation.”
In plain English, that gobbledegook means, “Notwithstanding the damage we are doing to the Natura site, because we are compensating by dumping some mud somewhere else, no damage has occurred.” This is a most ridiculous interpretation. It did not fool the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. In a classic piece of English understatement, in its letter to me it says:
“We remain to be convinced that on a practical level the proposals have been sufficiently well considered and will deliver the habitat benefits that would be required to provide assurance that the introduction of the new ferries will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site. We also continue to seek clarification as to whether the scheme is in fact compensation rather than mitigation.”
So we have this issue of compensation and mitigation. Natural England has already accepted a measure of damage and adverse effect on the sites. It tends to rather understate it. In its stakeholder response to the study carried out by Natural England, Wightlink says:
“The revised impact requiring mitigation is quantified by Natural England as increasing from 1.05 to 1.55 ha per decade (for explanation see Appendix 5). This predicted impact is still very small year on year (0.16 ha) only building to a more substantial impact and risk of adverse effect over several years.”
When people put things in newspeak, it is an attempt to confuse the general reader. I did not come across “ha”—whatever “ha” is—in my O-level maths, so one feels intimidated and does not ask the question but simply accepts the conclusion that it is very small. I suspect it is a hectare.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
indicated assent.
Mr Swayne
The Minister nods, so it is a hectare. So 0.16 of a hectare is 1,600 square metres, and that is the impact each year. I do not consider that to be very small at all.
Let me outline for the Minister what I think the law states should happen. For the purposes of the habitats directive one has a plan or a project. That was one of the first battles in court. Yes, it is a plan or a project. Will it have an adverse effect? In order to determine that, one needs an assessment. Whether one needs an appropriate assessment or a full environmental impact assessment in addition is a question of law, but one needs the assessments to answer the first question.
If the assessments suggest there is no adverse impact, one can go ahead with the project; if yes, stop. Then, ask the next question. Is there an alternative—a question that has been completely avoided by the current process? There are all sorts of other alternatives, including a smaller ferry with a different means of propulsion that is not so damaging to the river. Nevertheless, is there an alternative? If yes, take the alternative. If no, that is when it lands on the Minister’s desk.
If the answer is no then the Minister has to decide whether there is overwhelming public interest in the project proceeding, notwithstanding the damage it will do to the sites. That is where, if I were the Minister, I would probably take a step back and say, “Well actually, when it comes down to it, we do need the ferry.” But we have not been through that assessment yet; we have not reached that point. It is at that point, if the Minister decides there is an overwhelming public interest in the project proceeding, that he considers compensation and doing something else to build up the salt marshes elsewhere.
The process that has been undertaken in Lymington has put these elements in completely the wrong order. We are already talking about compensation, although an attempt is being made to say that it is actually mitigation: “Don’t mention the word ‘compensation’—it’s really mitigation—because of the implications that arise from that definition.” Clearly, however, that is the process that ought to be followed and I fear that if it is not, we will end up with another expensive spat in court.
Let me briefly describe to the Minister my desired end state. I hope that we end up with a viable ferry service between Lymington and Yarmouth, and that we can come to an accommodation on the basis of preserving the Natura sites and the yachting that is vital to Lymington’s economy. I fear that we will be presented with a fait accompli: regulators were asleep on the watch. Whatever the reason, we now have expensive ferries, built in Bulgaria, operating on the Lymington river and doing damage. How do we get round that? I hope that with some means of determining the compensation and the way forward, we can reach an agreement that Wightlink will go to some lengths to ensure that those ferries are, in a reasonable period, sold on for use elsewhere, or used on another of its routes, while an appropriate ferry for the conditions of the Lymington river is introduced as a replacement. In reality, this is a highly profitable route. It has one of the highest charges per passenger mile of any ferry in the world, a monopoly inherited from British Railways. The company ought to be able to make a go of it. There should be no question of any threat to the viability of the continued service.
I close by asking the Minister to reflect on this. Notwithstanding the failure of Government and the regulators to spot this on the horizon and deal with it effectively, and leaving aside the Adjournment debates that I held in order to raise the issue with Ministers, it has been a small number of local yachtsmen who have had to take the initiative and raise the huge sums of money to take the matter to court. I hope that they are not going to have to do so again.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) on, as he says, his third Adjournment debate, the first to which I have had the pleasure of responding. I know that he feels strongly about the issue. I think he is aware that the matter falls within the remit of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is responsible for marine issues, but unfortunately cannot be here today. I preface my remarks by saying that if, as I strongly suspect, I do not entirely allay all the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would be happy to meet him and go through them in more detail.
On the issue of biodiversity, I was astonished when reading the brief by the scale and significance of the salt flats to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West referred so clearly. Lymington harbour is part of a complex of estuaries in the Solent which supports a diverse coastal ecology. Large parts of the area, as he has said, are designated under a number of directives because of the habitats and species there.
By way of background, for which my hon. Friend will understand the need, the sites designated under the habitats and birds directive enjoy a degree of protection commensurate with their biodiversity importance. Any plans or projects, as he rightly said, proposed in the area are subject to an initial screening to decide whether the plan or project may have a significant effect on the site. Unless a significant effect can be conclusively ruled out, the plan or project needs to be subject to a full assessment via a legal procedure set out in those regulations. That is known, as my hon. Friend said, as an “appropriate assessment” and responsibility for undertaking it rests with the “competent authority”, the identity of which is clearly one of his concerns. It is the body proposing to undertake, or give consent to, the plan or project. The purpose of the assessment is to ascertain whether the plan or project is likely to have an adverse impact on the integrity of a protected site. That assessment includes a detailed study of impacts and mitigation measures, and an assessment of alternatives. In carrying out an assessment, the competent authority is required to “have regard to” the advice of the appropriate statutory nature conservation body, which in this case is Natural England.
Having said that legal bit, I should say that I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about Wightlink’s decision a year ago to introduce larger ferries on the route. I could argue with him about some of the issues to which he referred, although I would be arguing from almost the same position of lack of understanding to which he referred in other contexts. The Department is not aware of having lost two cases, as I think he suggested. There have been two cases in court, one was the judicial review, to which he referred, and the other was an application for an injunction to stop the ferries that was refused. We could debate the rights and wrongs of the issue, but they were fully aired at the hearing in December, which culminated in the judgment handed down in February that is now a matter of public record. I strongly endorse the point made at the outset of his remarks about the importance of the ferry and the commercial need for it in his local economy and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner). Ferries are crucial for both.
We now need to concentrate on the measures being taken to ensure that the protected sites suffer no adverse impacts from the new ferries so that the service can continue as intended. I do not want to open a debate into all the issues covered by the judicial review hearing, but two key points emerged from the judgment. First, the introduction of the type of larger ferry in question was, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West said, a plan or project under the terms of the habitats directive, and, secondly, the judgment confirmed that Wightlink is the competent authority responsible for assessing the impact of the ferries. Although DEFRA has a role to oversee the implementation of the directive in the UK, the court agreed that it would not be appropriate for the Department to assume the role of competent authority, which I think is what my hon. Friend was suggesting, nor did the court suggest that the fact that Wightlink is a private company disqualifies it from discharging its duties as a statutory harbour authority.
Some of the faults that my hon. Friend described, and his desired final outcome, are issues that Wightlink itself, as the competent authority, should take into account, particularly the consideration of alternatives. I fully understand his desire for those alternatives to be considered. Since the judgment, Wightlink and Natural England have worked very closely to assess the potential impacts of the new ferries and to consider what mitigation works would be needed to avoid any adverse impacts. Both parties have invested considerable time and money in that process and used their own expert consultants. That assessment includes mapping evidence to assess changes to the navigational channel, consideration of sediment movement and a review of other influences on the navigation channel. The work also considered propulsion and ship wash modelling, and other likely effects from the increased size of the new ferries.
My hon. Friend referred to the damage that he believes has already been done by the ferries. My understanding is that the studies into the loss of the salt flats and salt marshes go back much longer; apparently, the Keyhaven marshes experienced a 50% loss between 1971 and 2001, and the Lymington marshes experienced a 63% loss between 1946 and 2001. No study to date has been conclusive on the cause of the loss. I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concern at those losses. Having grown up in a similar area on the east coast, I fully understand the importance of the salt marshes, but we need to have a sense of perspective and not necessarily to blame everything on what has happened recently.
My hon. Friend had a little tease about the meaning of the word “ha”, and I think he understands that it is, as he implied, a hectare. Natural England has quantified the predicted habitat loss and deterioration caused by the ferries and requiring mitigation as 1.6 hectares of inter-tidal habitat per decade. My hon. Friend suggested that the organisation had come to a decision before the assessment, and we can argue about the precise detail, but it is important that we start with a marker as to where we need to be on mitigation.
Wightlink and Natural England have had detailed discussions about mitigation works that Wightlink could undertake to ensure that the operation of the ferries has no adverse impact on the protected sites and can thus continue without breaching the Government’s obligations under the directive. A programme of work has been proposed that involves taking material acquired from the regular dredging of the local moorings and depositing it in an area of deteriorating and eroding salt marsh. That would prolong the life of the salt marsh and mudflat habitat and offset the possible increase in the erosion of the mudflat attributed to the ferries. That work will of course be undertaken and funded by Wightlink, and it will require the consent of other regulators. I understand that Wightlink intends to start the work next spring.
Let me address my hon. Friend’s point about whether the proposals comply with the habitats directive. I am satisfied that it is acceptable to take into account proposed mitigation works when coming to a conclusion about whether a plan or project would have an adverse impact on the integrity of a protected site. I am also satisfied that works intended to avoid an adverse impact should be regarded as mitigation rather than compensation. I understand that Wightlink and Natural England have taken counsel’s opinion on the issue.
Clearly, this is a complex area. Like my hon. Friend, I do not pretend to be an expert on it, but we need to look at what we can do to counter the risks. First, the ferries are being monitored. As he said, the Lymington harbour commissioners undertake regular bathymetric surveys, which will pick up any long-term erosion. Wightlink has also placed graduated stakes at various points to work out whether there is any evidence of ferry thrusters affecting the mudflats. So far, there is no evidence to suggest that the impacts will be different from those already predicted. However, we are clearly in an unknown area, and the science suggests that any erosion will be gradual and cumulative, so it may take several years to build a firm picture. That is why the monitoring is designed to give early warnings, which will enable us to move quickly if we need to.
That brings me to my last point, which relates to my hon. Friend’s question about what happens if Wightlink and Natural England have got things wrong. Ultimately, the most important safeguard is the Secretary of State’s power to control the operation of the ferries. If, at any stage, Natural England provides advice that there is evidence to suggest that the operation of the ferries is likely to damage the site, the Secretary of State has the power under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 to make a special nature conservation order and to serve a notice on Wightlink requiring it to stop any operation specified in the notice. I must repeat that Natural England predicts that the impact of the ferries is most likely to be gradual and cumulative. On that basis, it has advised that provided that Wightlink successfully delivers mitigation works starting next spring, it will avoid any adverse effect on the integrity of the protected sites. As things stand, therefore, we have no clear scientific basis on which to support a decision to stop or suspend the ferry operation at the moment.
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject, because the debate opened my eyes to an issue with which I was not familiar. Clearly, our main priority is to comply with our obligations under the habitats directive and to protect these important habitats, and that is what we want to achieve. If we can do so while catering for the commercial needs to which my hon. Friend referred, that will satisfy us all. If he wishes to pursue the matter, he can talk to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. If all else fails, the Government ultimately have the power to stop the ferries, but I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West and I would like to think that we can work things out without having to do that.