Veterinary Products Committee and Sub-Committees (Annual Report)

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I have received the annual report of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committees 2011, which has been published today.

Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am pleased to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committees and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

Arpley Landfill Site

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on obtaining the debate. I gather that he was supposed to be having a debate in Westminster Hall on the Arpley landfill site but lost the opportunity when the House prorogued. I am pleased to have the chance to respond to the serious points he has made, and to recognise how diligently he has represented the interests of his constituents, including as he rightly said, holding a meeting with my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. In regard to my hon. Friend’s invitation to me to visit Arpley, I am sure that I would thoroughly enjoy it, but I think I must defer to my noble Friend, who is the responsible Minister, as my hon. Friend well knows. That would be more appropriate, although there may be issues of propriety, given that the application is under consideration.

As my hon. Friend may appreciate, I may fail to respond to some of the points that he has raised; I certainly cannot pass judgment on the relative merits of the proposals made by WRG because, as he obviously is aware, the proposals are largely a matter for the relevant planning authority—in this case Warrington borough council—and they must be based on the merits of the application. They are also, as my hon. Friend said, matters for the Environment Agency, which regulates the operations at Arpley landfill through an environmental permit granted to the operator. The decisions made by planning authorities and the Environment Agency are also potentially open to appeal by the applicant. It is therefore important that Ministers, both in the Department for Communities and Local Government and DEFRA, remain impartial in case they are called upon at a later stage in an appellate role.

I also emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is the planning permission that is due to expire in 2013. The licence that he mentioned is, in fact, an environmental permit and that will not expire. Environmental legislation ensures that once granted, operators cannot rid themselves of their obligation to manage the site, so permits remain in force until they are surrendered and sites are returned to a satisfactory state. However, it is likely that the planning application, if granted, would require WRG to apply for a variation to its existing permit to ensure that any risks are reassessed and that appropriate measures are put in place to mitigate that risk.

I fully recognise the concerns, expressed by my hon. Friend, of those living very close to the Arpley landfill site and who may be faced with the prospect of a 12-year extension to the operations there. I am sure that my constituents would have very similar views—and yours, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. Residents living near the site—particularly those living in new housing developments built in the expectation that the site was nearing the end of its life—will perfectly naturally and understandably worry about the continued potential problems and the nuisance from traffic movements, noise, odour and so on from tipping, although I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer to the applicant’s proposals to alter traffic movements.

Decisions about the grant of planning permission are always in the first instance a matter for the relevant local authority, acting in accordance with national planning policy. It is during the planning process that concerns, many of which my hon. Friend has expressed, such as the height and the contouring of the site, should be considered, as well as issues such as the routing of traffic, the positioning of site entrances from the public highway and the opportunities for alternative transport by road and rail.

The Environment Agency is charged, along with other bodies, to protect human health and the environment, not just during the operation of the site but also for many years after the site closes. Modern-day landfill sites are subject to stringent technical standards to provide long-term containment of pollutants. Pollution control monitoring of such things as leachate—contaminated water on the site—and the capture and treatment of landfill gas produced from the breakdown of biodegradable waste are all part of that. Sites will remain regulated by the agency after final closure to ensure that the pollution control systems remain operational for the long-term aftercare period needed for landfill sites.

Tipping at landfills is carried out to achieve optimum waste densities in a site, so that its slopes are stable and encourage even settlement of the contours over time. Many factors, such the nature of the waste and the moisture content, determine the rate of landfill gas production. It is not just the issue of pressure, which my hon. Friend mentioned. It is important to capture and treat landfill gas—first, because it reduces the harmful greenhouse gas emissions of methane, and secondly, because it is a form of energy recovery from waste that can be utilised.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, the proposed restructuring of the site would involve over-tipping of some areas previously tipped and completed, but contrary to his understanding, we understand that this would definitely not involve disturbance of the Birchwood area where the carcases of cattle suspected of having BSE were deposited under direction from the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If there was such a prospect, clearly the Environment Agency would have to consult partner agencies, such as the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, in assessing any risk from the disposal of suspected BSE cattle in the early 1990s.

The Government consider waste planning authorities to be best placed to create and to deliver waste management strategies for their areas. That means making sure that waste plans inform and are informed by relevant documents, such as the municipal waste management strategy, as well as by the relevant waste collection and disposal authorities working together—and demonstrating how they have done so under the duty to co-operate provisions of the Localism Act 2011—so as to provide effective and sustainable cross-boundary arrangements to meet their needs.

My hon. Friend challenged the Government’s record on landfill, but I assure him that we have been reducing landfill for some time. The number of operational landfill sites in England and Wales has fallen from more than 2,000 when the landfill directive was implemented in 2002 to fewer than 500 now. The amount of waste being landfilled has continued to fall year on year since 2002-03 and is now about 45% lower than a decade ago. We are already meeting our 2013 target to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. As my hon. Friend rightly said, considerably reduced landfilling helps to explain why many of the landfill sites that remain in operation are not being completed and restored within the time scales originally envisaged, or, as in the present case, are seeking extensions to their period of operation.

Landfill should be the waste management option of last resort and be used only for wastes for which there is no alternative use. The measures outlined in our “Review of Waste Policy in England”, published last June, will play a significant role in pushing wastes up the hierarchy and away from landfill by encouraging the right infrastructure, markets and culture to enable us to treat waste more fully as a resource. I have often said that one man’s waste is another man’s raw material.

Prevention also has a great part to play, and the amount of waste produced is 6% lower than in 2006. The landfill tax—£64 per tonne now, rising to £80 per tonne in 2014-15—remains a key driver to divert waste from landfill, but we want to do better than just diverting waste. We can be more optimistic about recycling—according to the latest figures, we recycle 42.5% of waste. We should also be using a range of alternative methods, including, as my hon. Friend rightly emphasised, energy from waste and anaerobic digestion, adopting the range of options that work best locally—although, as I think he implied, we should not underestimate local opposition to power from waste or anaerobic digestion plants. I have had to deal with both in my constituency.

Even with that push, however, it would remain likely that some waste that could be put to better use would end up in landfill. The introduction of additional restrictions may therefore be warranted to achieve our ultimate aim. As a starting point, we will consult later this year on whether to introduce a restriction on the landfilling of wood waste, with the aim of diverting the still substantial tonnages that end up in landfill to better uses up the waste hierarchy, and delivering clear environmental benefits. I cannot understand why people pour wood into landfill sites.

[David Mowat]

The Minister says we are making progress on reducing the amount of landfill, which is true, but it still accounts for about 50% of the total, versus 3% in Germany and 5% in the Benelux countries. Will he confirm that the Government’s long-term plan is to achieve similar figures in this country? That is a long way from where we are now.

[Mr Paice]

I can confirm that it is the long-term plan of the Government to eliminate landfill altogether; my hon. Friend is right to challenge us on that front. On the question of why we are well behind a number of other countries, I will not make excuses for the past, but we have historically had a much larger reliance on landfill sites, because we had a high number of mineral industries, and quarries that required a form of restoration and that were obvious sites for tipping. We also had the natural protection afforded by our largely clay subsoil. We start from further behind, but that is no excuse for not continuing to do better.

I hope that I have covered a number of my hon. Friend’s points. He asked me four questions at the end of his speech. I hope that I have answered the first point, which was about our ambition for waste prevention and the waste hierarchy. Our measures are already beginning to bear fruit, and we want the pace of change to continue and increase. On the second and third points, I defer to the Department for Communities and Local Government on interpretation of the Localism Act 2011, but on meeting the proximity principle—that is, recovering waste at the nearest appropriate facility—I am afraid that there is no expectation that each waste planning authority will deal solely with its own waste.

On the fourth point, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Environment Agency will assess closely any application to vary the permit, and will satisfy itself that the proposals do not result in previously deposited waste posing an unacceptable risk to health or the environment. It will ensure that the permit provides the necessary monitoring of pollutants likely to arise in landfill. My hon. Friend has asked a number of parliamentary questions on the subject. I hope that the answers given by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), have addressed some of his concerns. The Environment Agency not only takes notice of what comes from a landfill site, but studies what goes in. From that, it can derive some evidence or indication of what likely pollutants might arise. For instance, there will be dioxins only if there is a significant level of chlorine products in landfill. That is something that the Environment Agency monitors.

I would like to re-emphasise a point that is of huge concern to me as Minister with responsibility for agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South mentioned the knowledge of where carcases likely to be infected with BSE are. As I have said to him, the Environment Agency believes that it knows where they are, and it has identified that the proposed changes are not in that area. If my hon. Friend has any evidence that might disprove that, clearly I would welcome seeing it, because obviously we want to make absolutely sure that there is no risk from that.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising his concerns, which I am sure would have been raised by other Members faced with a similar situation. He has rightly, in the interests of his constituency, raised the problems, and today’s debate gave me the opportunity to provide some reassurance that we have systems that are able to strike an appropriate balance between meeting the needs of society on the one hand, and the protection of people and the environment on the other. We are making great strides in dealing with waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy—a point that he rightly reinforced—and intend to continue to do that. I hope that he can take some comfort from my remarks, and I congratulate him on the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Rural Payments Agency Framework Document

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

An update to the Rural Payments Agency’s framework document is being published today. In line with the requirements for all Executive agencies, the document sets out the overarching framework for the governance and accountability arrangements between Government and the agency.

As well as changes to reflect current corporate requirements and practices, the update reflects the action taken since publication of the 2013 review of the RPA to strengthen governance arrangements both in DEFRA and the RPA, including:

The establishment of the RPA oversight board, which I personally chair, to oversee the agency’s operations and its preparations for implementation of the expected 2013 CAP reforms. Independent scrutiny is provided by the appointment of four non-executive directors;

Additional independent scrutiny and challenge of the RPA’s internal governance, with non-executive directors appointed to the chair of the agency management board and the RPA’s audit and risk committee;

The RPA framework document may be viewed on the RPA’s website: http://rpa.defra.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/home and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Tackling Irresponsible Dog Ownership

James Paice Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I am pleased to announce a package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. I apologise to the House that this announcement is four weeks later than intended.

In the past few years there has been a sharp rise in the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership. The number of adults sentenced for offences relating to dangerous dogs has increased by 39% from 855 in 2009 to 1,192 in 2010. The number of dog-related admissions to hospital has also risen significantly, from 2,915 in 1997 to 6,118 in 2010. In 2009 alone, dog attacks cost the NHS £3.3 million in treating the most serious cases where victims had to be admitted for treatment. Every year there are numerous reported attacks on Royal Mail, Parcelforce and British Telecom staff. Most of these attacks take place on private property. Between 2007 and 2010, five people were killed following a dog attack in the home; four of the victims were children under the age of four years. Concerns have also been raised with DEFRA about dog attacks on health visitors and social workers during home visits.

Irresponsible dog ownership is a complex problem and there is no single solution. The primary responsibility for ensuring that dogs are kept under proper control must rest with individual owners who should only acquire a dog if they are prepared to look after it properly and make sure that it does not become a nuisance or a danger to others.

Given growing concern about the number of dog attacks, the previous Government consulted the public in 2010 to find out whether the law needed to be changed and, if so, what changes might help. The consultation found that most people thought that powers contained in the existing dangerous dogs legislation were inadequate. The police and the dog welfare charities said that the criminal law in relation to dogs being dangerously out of control should be extended to cover private property (the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 only applies on public land or private land where the dog is trespassing) and there was also widespread support for compulsory microchipping.

The responses showed that there was no support for adding other breeds or types to the list of prohibited dogs. However, the police specifically made the point that removing the ban on the four specific prohibited types, pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, dogo Argentino and fila Brasileiro, would significantly increase the risk of dog attacks because these four prohibited types were originally specifically bred for fighting, are renowned for their aggressive behaviour and are known to be disproportionately dangerous when in the hands of an irresponsible individual or when dangerously out of control.

Having considered the replies to the consultation and further consulted the police, local authorities and other organisations who are in the front line in dealing with irresponsible dog ownership, Government have decided that it would be appropriate to extend existing dangerous dogs law in England to cover all private property. Extending the current law would make it enforceable in homes, private gardens and private land where people and dogs are entitled to be, better protecting the thousands of service workers such as medical staff and postmen whose jobs take them onto private property. However, the proposed extension to the criminal law will not extend to protect trespassers who have entered the private property with unlawful intentions.

In addition, to ensure the welfare of dogs that have become the subject of court proceedings and to ease the costs to the police service. Government have also decided that it should no longer be necessary for the police to seize and kennel dogs pending the outcome of court proceedings where the police do not consider the dog presents a risk to the public. The requirement to seize the dog will not be waived unless the police are satisfied that it is in the care of a responsible owner. In addition interim conditions can be placed on the owner, that is; requiring the dog to be muzzled and on lead when in public (this would apply in England).

We consider that allowing dogs to be exempted from seizure in these circumstances strikes the right balance between protecting the public from dangerous dogs and ensuring that safe and properly looked after dogs are not unnecessarily removed from their homes. We propose to raise the fee of £24 (first set in 1991) payable by the owner for placing prohibited dogs on the index of exempted dogs to better reflect the costs involved in administering these dogs for their lifetime and thereby reduce the burden on the taxpayer (this would apply throughout Great Britain). Further funding is also being given to the Association of Chief Police Officers to support the training that they provide for dog legislation officers in order to ensure that there is a hub of dog law expertise in every police force.

It is also our intention to introduce regulations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on microchipping to promote animal welfare by making it easier for local authorities and rescue centres to quickly reunite stray dogs with their owners. It would also help the police and local authorities to enforce dog and animal welfare legislation. Our preferred approach is to make breeders responsible for microchipping the puppy before sale.

Therefore a further consultation is being held to give the public an opportunity to give their views on these proposed legislative changes. In relation to microchipping the options are: (i) requiring all dogs to be microchipped on transfer of ownership, (ii) requiring all dogs to be microchipped from a certain date, (iii) implementing a phased-in process, such as starting with compulsory microchipping on transfer of ownership and after five years moving to mandatory microchipping of all dogs, or (iv) making breeders responsible for microchipping newly born dogs before (first) sale. This is the responsibility of the breeder or seller and not the purchaser. The preferred option is the fourth one.

We consider that education also has a significant role to play in reducing the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership. Government are providing funding of £50,000 to be shared between the RSPCA, Battersea Cats and Dogs Home and the Dogs Trust to foster innovative local community projects to encourage responsible dog ownership in areas where there are high instances of dog-related problems. The funding is being provided on the basis that the interventions will be carefully evaluated and the learning disseminated to help others engaged in working with local communities.

In drawing up these measures, DEFRA has worked with the Home Office to ensure the new antisocial behaviour measures they are preparing reflect the needs of enforcement agencies and enhance their ability to prevent irresponsible dog owners presenting a risk to the general public.

Local authorities already have powers to designate areas of public space as “dog free zones” while social landlords are able to lay down rules for their tenants regarding the keeping of dogs or other animals. Many local initiatives build on these powers and today’s announcement compliments them to address the small minority of dog owners who cause such distress to these whom they attack or intimidate.

Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I regret to inform the House that incomplete information was provided in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 98309 on 6 March, Official Report, column 669W, concerning how many cattle have been culled as a result of contracting diseases in (a) England, (b) the North West and (c) Cumbria in each of the last 10 years. My answer to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) did not reflect the full range of notifiable diseases which were relevant to the question.

The information that should have appeared is set out below:

Cattle culled as a result of contracting bovine TB, foot and mouth disease (FMD), bluetongue, BSE and Brucellosis in the formats held by DEFRA, follows:

For bovine TB, the figures can be found on DEFRA’s website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/landuselivestock/cattletb/

The following table shows the number of cattle and sheep culled by DEFRA for exotic notifiable disease control purposes. The 2007 figure for cattle comprises of 982 for FMD and 5 for bluetongue:

Dangerous Dogs

James Paice Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing the debate. As she and many other hon. Members have said, the timing is very appropriate. I also congratulate her on the fact that she has clearly done so much research, not just into the tragedy that affected her constituents, the Smith family, but into much wider issues, including the thought she has given to potential measures to redress the situation.

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about many other hon. Members and the diligence with which they have pursued these issues. I am not saying that I agree with every aspect of their suggestions, but I fully respect and understand their genuine concerns. I am sure the whole House—and certainly the Government—endorses her sympathy for the Smith family, the family of John-Paul Massey and countless other families who, as Members have said, have been affected by out-of-control dogs.

The Government are aware that the issue is important to many people. I am a dog owner myself and I see it as both a privilege and a great responsibility. It should not be taken lightly by individuals, as it is a serious responsibility, and the owner is clearly responsible for how the dog behaves. Several hon. Members have mentioned that the owner is often at fault. We all know that certain breeds and crossbreeds are more prone to bad behaviour or attacking people, but in many cases the actions of the owner are responsible for how the dog behaves.

As a former owner of a boxer, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) that the vast majority of boxers are placid and quiet. The behaviour to which he referred, where dogs chased his wife before she was his wife—I am not in any way suggesting that it did not happen—was obviously horrendous for her and none of us would want to be in that situation, but it would be wrong to damn the whole breed because of those animals. We all know that some breeds are more prone to the problem, and pit bulls and their crossbreeds are a clear example of that.

[Mark Reckless]

Of course, I respect what the Minister has said, but does that not go to show that it is not the breed but the behaviour and the circumstances that matter? In my example, a commercial dog walker was purporting to control 13 dogs, including some significantly large breeds.

[Mr Paice]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am jumping into specifics, but as far as the issue of commercial dog walkers is concerned—although I confess I do not have a particular note or brief on the subject—I do not think that anybody could dissent from what he has said. It defies belief that anybody could be in control of 13 dogs, however competent they were. No doubt somebody will write to me and say that that is possible, but I suspect that not many people would agree with them.

Having a dog that is out of control is clearly an issue of public safety. It is not fair on the dog if it is not being properly cared for and has not been trained to behave appropriately. Sometimes, one can witness examples of dogs that appear to be out of control and one wonders what care they are getting and whether the treatment the dog is receiving is fair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest referred to the Smith case and she properly made the point that the owner of the dog has been prosecuted successfully and convicted. I fully understand her concern about the penalties imposed, but it demonstrates that even when an offence is committed, it does not always force people to do the right thing. I fully understand her comments about the penalty, but I must say that we have not had any pressure from the courts to increase the penalties. However, I fully understand and endorse her concerns.

I am also very much aware that I and other Ministers have said that we are close to making an announcement on a package of measures designed to tackle irresponsible dog owners. I confess that it is a matter of personal disappointment that I have not been able to make that announcement before today. I had very much hoped that that would be possible but I am afraid it has not been. If hon. Members want to intervene on me about this issue, I shall treat them with my usual courtesy, I hope, but for obvious reasons I will not be in a position to enlighten the House in great detail about what might be in the package. I know that many Members in the House and people outside it await our announcement with keen interest.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

I have committed myself now, so of course I will.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister made it impossible for me not to intervene. Could he at least tell us whether we will get a package of measures that will fit into existing legislation or whether there will be an offer of primary legislation in the Queen’s Speech?

[Mr Paice]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will enlighten me at some point as to what I have to do to make sure that she does not intervene. She will know that I cannot presage what will be in the Queen’s Speech. All I can say is that we are looking at measures that can be brought into play and are enforceable and effective. She cannot tempt me to go further than that in giving the detail.

[Luciana Berger]

Can the Minister kindly confirm—he has said this in the past few weeks—that we will see this package of measures before the recess, and therefore before the end of the month?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to confirm that that is still our intention and desire.

The issue of irresponsible dog ownership spans a number of areas, with the police, courts, local authorities, dog re-homing centres, veterinary surgeons and charitable bodies, many of which are dog re-homing centres, all having an interest. It is therefore important to strike the right balance between penalising irresponsible dog owners and not placing unrealistic burdens on the majority of responsible dog owners. The serious implications that irresponsible dog ownership can have for individuals mean that we regard it as a form of antisocial behaviour. It is important that the police and other professionals have effective tools and powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. That is why the Home Office published a consultation document that proposed a streamlined set of faster, more flexible and more effective tools to allow practitioners to protect victims and communities and get to the root of the problem. The Home Office received more than 1,000 written responses to its consultation from the police, other front-line professionals, members of the judiciary, local authorities, interest groups and members of the public, and it has worked with DEFRA officials on the detail of the proposed new criminal behaviour order and the crime prevention injunction to ensure that they adequately cover dog-related issues and could apply to antisocial behaviour by dog owners.

We also want to encourage informal measures to tackle inappropriate behaviour before it escalates into something more serious. Such measures could include raising awareness of examples where local areas are taking a more informal approach to issues through, for example, restorative justice or working with potential offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest mentioned that some local authorities could require dogs to be microchipped before their owners could have local authority accommodation. That struck me as a very good example of a local initiative that could be used without the need for legislation.

[Cathy Jamieson]

May I return the Minister briefly to the point I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) about criminal behaviour and the definition of criminal intent? She talked about victims. Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the Home Office and the Justice Department, if he has not already done so, the issue of criminal injuries compensation in circumstances in which innocent victims are severely injured through no fault of their own because of irresponsible dog owners?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to undertake to discuss that with my colleagues. My understanding is that the Home Office has considered the matter. I do not wish to presage what may or may not be announced by Ministers there. Suffice it to say that I do not think they are fully persuaded. I shall say a word in a moment about other financial aspects.

Currently dog control orders are available to local authorities, under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. These allow local authorities to impose restrictions on the walking of dogs in certain public open areas. Typically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest suggested, this allows child recreation areas in parks to remain dog-free and thereby helps to provide a safe area for children to play. It also allows local authorities to place restrictions in areas where there have been substantial complaints about unruly dogs in general causing problems. My hon. Friend rightly said that the part of a park where the children’s play area is should be free from dogs. I entirely agree. The powers exist and local authorities can ensure that. One would encourage them to do so in the appropriate situations.

As the House may know, dog control orders will be replaced by the new measures available under the Home Office’s proposed revised antisocial behaviour measures, but there are no proposals to remove the power to create dog-free areas. Another proposal being looked at by my Department is to extend the criminal law on dangerous dogs to all private property. My hon. Friend rightly made a great deal of this. The proposal would allow the police to investigate dog attacks on private property. However, we need to make sure that any new measure gets it right. There is an issue of balance here. Nobody would disagree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the Communication Workers Union. Clearly, someone going about their duties as a postman, milkman or anybody else who goes on to private property should not expect to be under attack from a dog. That, I hope, goes without saying.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of children. None of us wants to see children attacked anywhere, but there is a distinction to be made between people who are legitimately on premises, whether a postman or postwoman, a child whose home it is or who is staying with their grandparents or whatever it may be, and somebody who should not be on the property—a potential burglar or other trespasser.

I am carefully trying not to lead the House into any conclusions about what may be announced. All I would say is that there is an issue of getting it right. We are discussing a first-class example in which haste does not get it right. I was here—I do not think anyone else in the Chamber this evening was—when the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was passed. We all realised that we as a Government, of which I was a very junior member at the time, acted in haste. Perhaps we could say that we have repented at leisure. We clearly did not get it right.

I do not support any cause for delay, but deliberation is required. I have therefore pointed out the balance that we have to strike between those who have a right to be on a property and those who should not be there in the first place. Do we really want to see a trespasser successfully prosecuting a home owner because a dog has acted in a way that many people would consider only natural towards somebody who the dog would not expect to be on the premises? There are major implications to extending the law into the home. We need to make sure that all the potential risks are understood and can be addressed.

[Luciana Berger]

The Minister rightly referred to postmen and women coming to homes, and the need to protect children, but the issue is broader than that. Social workers visit homes, as do health workers and health visitors, telecom workers and people coming to read meters. There is a plethora of people who have to enter someone’s property for one reason or another and who could be and have been under attack from dangerous dogs.

[Mr Paice]

I fully accept everything the hon. Lady says. I referred to postmen and women only by way of example; it was not meant to be an exclusive list, as I am sure she appreciates.

A number of people, including some hon. Members, support the idea that if breed-specific legislation is not repealed, and frankly we have no intention of repealing it—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood said, the police point to its benefits and do not wish it to be repealed—owners should be allowed to apply to the courts to have their dogs added to the index of exempted dogs. I would want the police to have the final say on whether a dog should be seized, and there might also be scope for not kennelling other types of dogs that are not a danger.

In answer to another point that was raised, we are very much aware of the costs of kennelling not only to the Metropolitan police, who are the biggest example, but to many others, including some charities, and we are aware that those costs have risen steeply over the past few years. We are not aware of the police having any central records for all forces in England, but we might be wrong about that, so my officials will make inquiries with ACPO to see whether those central records exist. In all cases, the police would need to be satisfied that the dogs are in the care of a responsible owner, as there would be no point in putting them on the list of exempted dogs if they were then left in the care of someone who would not be responsible. The idea would clearly save the police money, which we fully appreciate.

Another proposal referred to by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is the compulsory microchipping of dogs. My officials in DEFRA keep in close and regular contact with officials in the Northern Ireland Executive. We are aware of what they are doing and are watching the development of their new initiative carefully. There are obviously benefits to the compulsory microchipping of dogs, one of which is the ability to identify the owner of a dog that had become dangerously out of control, even if they were not present at the time of the incident. Better traceability of owners could discourage owners from letting their dogs run loose and, therefore, reduce the likelihood of attacks. We have to consider the downsides. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest is probably right about the issue of cost, which some people raise, but updating the records is more important. Clearly, if a dog changes hands or its owner moves, the record becomes useless unless it is updated. Again, it is an example of not just a simplistic approach, but one that has huge merits.

We have made it a priority to see how the issue is being dealt with on the ground by many local authorities and are looking at how local community initiatives are promoting responsible dog ownership. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest referred to initiatives for local authority accommodation. One example is Ealing borough council’s “dog watch” initiative. I know that Waltham Forest district council has also carried out many initiatives in part of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have a long list of initiatives and congratulate the council on its work. All of them are key to tackling the problem of irresponsible dog ownership. They can provide suitably tailored local approaches to local problems.

The guidance that my Department issued to law enforcers in 2009, under the previous Government, also reminds local authority housing providers and other landlords that they can play an important part in addressing antisocial behaviour in areas where they have jurisdiction, as we have discussed. Housing providers are strongly encouraged to have a clear and positive policy towards dogs, with sanctions and consequences if a tenant fails to adhere, and of course that applies just as much to housing associations as it does to local authority housing.

I said that I was going to return to the issue of finance and, in particular, to insurance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest raised as one of her proposals. The previous Government considered the matter when they launched their consultation in 2010. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is, I am pleased to say, nodding in agreement. At the time, however, the insurance business was not at all supportive of the proposition, and if the industry is not prepared to offer such policies it is difficult to see how one could make insurance compulsory, as my hon. Friend suggested.

I am also not sure that insurance is a necessary prerequisite, bearing in mind that the vast majority of dog owners would therefore pay for it to deal with the behaviour of a tiny but nevertheless significant minority of irresponsible dog owners, but I reaffirm that it has been a matter of consideration and interest for the Department. I should not want to discourage any individual who wanted to take out such insurance, but part of me wonders whether, if they want to take it out, they have doubts about their ability to control their dog.

I apologise to the House for not being able to be more specific about what we are proposing, but the House will be very much aware of the constraints on Ministers before decisions have been made. I reaffirm, however, that we are working on two separate packages of measures—although we hope that they will come together—in DEFRA and in the Home Office, and we are determined to take action.

[Mark Reckless]

I hear the Minister’s point about the issues regarding compulsion for every dog owner in the country, but before he leaves the issue of insurance entirely, will his Department consider the case of insurance for the much narrower category of commercial dog walkers, who earn money for supplying a service that purports to look after and control dogs?

[Mr Paice]

Yes, of course. I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we will look at that issue. My immediate concern is the definition of “commercial dog walker”, but I do not want to sound negative.

I apologise to the House for not being able to be more precise, and I hope that we can be in the not too distant future, but we want to be clear that we are not producing changes with a load of unintended consequences that we shall live to regret. We will continue to work up our proposals both to reduce dog attacks and on antisocial behaviour involving dogs, including the whole issue of trophy dogs and their use for intimidation. They might never attack anybody, but if they are intimidatory that can be just as antisocial.

We clearly want to promote responsible dog ownership, and I emphasise that the Government believe that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but we need to address the minority.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his very full response this evening. Can he confirm that any announcement will be made by way of a statement to the House, rather than through a written ministerial statement?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady asks me a question above my pay grade. I do not make those decisions, much as I should like to, but I hear what she says, and what she urges us to do.

What I can say is that once proposals have been finalised we will announce measures to tackle the issues that we have all discussed today, to make our communities safer and to make those who own dogs accept and respect the responsibility that is placed upon them partly for public safety and partly, as I said earlier, for dog welfare, which is an equal part of the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Common Agricultural Policy

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and distinguished member of the Select Committee for those remarks. I could go through the witness statements at some length, but the record speaks for itself. For the record, the Government response states:

“The UK Government accepts that there is more for us to do in this area and are continuing to develop our ideas for reform. A UK Government priority will be to continue the good work undertaken in previous reforms, such as phasing out the remaining coupled subsidies and continuing the market orientation of the CAP.”

I am sure that the Minister would like to stand by the evidence that he gave to the Committee in an oral session.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I need to point out to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that if she read her speech as I believe she did, she said that I had stated in witness evidence that the policy was to phase out the single farm payment over the next seven years and end it shortly thereafter. That in itself is a contradiction. That is not our policy. Our policy is, yes, to seek a phasing out of the single farm payment. However, she implied that I had said that it was to be extinguished by the end of that seven year period. That is not the policy.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for that clarification because the Committee was led to believe that that was the desire of the Department and the Minister. Certainly, that was the understanding of the witnesses—both the witness statements—from the farming community as well. I am sure that hon. Members will want to return to that matter.

We have already moved away from the historic basis of payments, and it would be anachronistic to continue to pay farmers on the basis of what they produced a decade ago. However, a flat rate per area would result in considerable redistribution within the UK, suggesting that national flexibility will be needed.

Turning to greening the CAP, the Committee agrees with the principle that the future CAP should reward and encourage sustainable farming. The Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability”, says that we will need to produce more food but use fewer inputs. We conclude that greening measures should not come at the expense of productive successful agriculture, but we need to find win-wins for sustainability and competitiveness. I repeat: we applaud the fact that, in this country, our farmers are already greening through agri-environmental schemes to a much greater extent than elsewhere in the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

Good afternoon, Mr Sheridan. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for that expression of support. I will start by reminding hon. Members of my own interests, as already declared, and thanking them for the way that they have contributed to this debate on what everyone agrees is an extremely important issue that probably does not get enough debating time in the House when compared with many other issues. That probably reflects people’s concerns and the fact that the country has become more urbanised in the past few decades.

As my agenda for my remarks, I want to use the proposals about CAP reform. As Members will know, although the subject of the debate is the Select Committee’s report and the Government’s response, both documents are basically obsolete, given that the report was produced last summer, since when we have had the Commission’s detailed proposals. Indeed, we have been able to explore those proposals. Negotiations have started and the Government have obviously been able to develop our own ideas. So I think that it will be more helpful to use the Commission’s main proposals, most of which have already been referred to during the debate, as a framework, and in doing so I will try to pick up on all the comments that colleagues have made about the proposals and some issues that arise from them.

First, we need to reflect, as one or two of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have done, on the background against which—uniquely, or certainly for the first time in many decades—this round of CAP reform is taking place. In my view, which I think is shared by the hon. Member for Ogmore, that background is one of optimism.

As was mentioned right at the start of the debate, also in the background is the Foresight report, which demonstrated that global demand for food will be somewhere between 70% and 100% greater—different figures are used—in the next 40 years than it is today. That rise in demand will be brought about not only by the population increase that Members have referred to, but by the fact that a large part of that population increase will happen in the two most populous countries—India and China—both of which have a rising middle class and a rising demand for higher quality and better diets. That is part and parcel of this change; it is not just about the rising number of people.

It is also worth making the point that 1 billion of those extra people in the years ahead will live in Africa—a continent that has immense potential for agricultural production, but a potential that is woefully underused for a whole raft of reasons, many of which were mentioned by hon. Members.

Furthermore, all of those changes are set against the background of climate change, which will render parts of the world almost impossible to farm but which perversely appears to make northern Europe one of the best places to farm.

The background is crucial in assessing not only the Commission’s proposals, but where we go with agriculture in the coming years. It creates great opportunities, and the Government are disappointed that the Commission’s proposals do not really meet the opportunities that that background provides. At their worst, they could take us backwards—I do not believe that they will, but they could—so I should like to spend some time analysing them. I accept—the hon. Member for Ogmore is right—that some of what I will say is a repetition of what we discussed in a European Committee, but it was so good that I will say it all again.

The most important issue to start with is the future of the single farm payment. I am disappointed with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on the single farm payment. I know a lot of farmers—farming has been my life—but I do not know a farmer who would not like to do away with subsidies. Of course, there are issues around that, but they would far rather not have a subsidy and not be dependent on public money. They would prefer not to have to be apologetic sometimes or to justify themselves. That in itself is an important point, and we should therefore set our sights on achieving that.

I want to put the record straight on the issue that we touched on earlier and say exactly what the Government’s position is. When I gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I said:

“I have always believed…that direct payment support…will end eventually… We are not going to see it happen in this financial perspective, but I think it will happen and I think the challenge is to help the farming industry face up to that day whenever it comes.”

That was my view, and it remains my view. It has been my view for the 25 years that I have been a Member. To confirm the official position, as opposed to merely what I have said, I refer hon. Members to the official Government response to the report. It states:

“we have made it clear that phasing out such payments”—

single farm payments—

“by 2020 is unrealistic, in both practical and negotiating terms.”

That is, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, a significant change from the previous Government’s position. I therefore hope that there can be no debate about what we are suggesting.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that a date needs to be fixed. In an ideal world, one would be, but the first argument to win is that we should set a trajectory. It is clear that the Select Committee does not agree. It is perfectly true that many member states and the commissioner do not believe that we should be ending, or even considering ending, single payments. We should recognise what I think will be an inevitable event at some time in the not-too-distant future but beyond this financial perspective.

We can look at what is going to happen, even though the crystal ball is extremely murky about the outcome of the negotiations. Even if the Commission’s own budget proposals for the CAP go through, that will mean a reduction in the single farm payment. That is clear. There is a cash freeze over the whole financial perspective for the CAP. Excluding one or two movements such as convergence between the highest and lowest paid member states, the single farm payment will reduce, certainly in the UK, so let us not pretend that we can somehow protect it and live on it for ever. That is not going to happen, so it is important that we spend a lot of our time and effort focusing on the CAP and trying to ensure that the industry can accommodate that and, as has been said, become more competitive.

[Dr Whiteford]

Will the Minister press for a fairer deal for Scottish farmers in the pillar one support, because we are currently well below the average in the UK and less than half the average in the EU?

[Mr Paice]

I was going to come to that point. The hon. Lady referred in her speech to the fact that I was in Scotland yesterday. I met the Scottish NFU, and I gave evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in the Scottish Parliament. I was asked the same question. I cannot give clear commitments, because we do not know what the outcome will be. We do not know what the total CAP budget will be. We know what the Commission is proposing. We certainly do not know how much there will be in pillar one or pillar two. We do not know what the convergence debate will lead to and whether that will be reflected in how we divide up the UK’s share of the cake, whatever it may be.

I will make the point that I made yesterday. It is a blunt instrument simply to take the total payment—to Scotland in this case—and divide it by the number of acres, because the acres are not all equal. As the hon. Lady rightly said, 85% of Scotland is in less favoured areas. Some of the land in the highlands is of little, if any, agricultural use. That bald statistic is a blunt way to compare resources. In any case, as she will be aware, the resources are simply based on the historical payments before the advent of the single farm payment. That is fact. As for the future, I made it clear yesterday that we will sit down with all the devolved legislatures to consider how to split the cake once we know how it has been arrived at and how big it is. We cannot prejudge the outcome.

I will say, because the hon. Lady intervened, that the point about the less favoured areas is crucial. The British Government fully support the need for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England to target support at such areas, which will be renamed under the CAP. I have forgotten the phrase, but it will come back to me. Those areas will get a new title, but little else will change. I am told that they will be called areas of natural constraint. In an ideal world—I will come back to the wider aspects—the targeted payment is best made from pillar two. The hon. Member for Ogmore referred to the uplands entry level scheme, which is what we have in England. Pillar two targeted payments for those areas with natural constraints could be just as effective as a blanket per acre, or per hectare, payment.

[Miss McIntosh]

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Mr Paice]

Ladies first.

[Miss McIntosh]

We are benefiting from the fact that the Government’s thinking has moved on. If the Government are eventually moving away from direct payments, what tools does the Minister hope to use to make UK farming more competitive? I do not think that agri-environment schemes make British farming more competitive. They deliver sustainable farming, but we are looking to develop more competitiveness across the EU.

[Mr Paice]

I have never suggested that agri-environment schemes will make the industry more competitive. I will come to that point later.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

When the Minister enters the final stages of the negotiations, he will draw up a list of priorities with colleagues in the devolved Administrations —a top three, a top five, a top 10. If there is a feeling, as seems to be emerging from the devolved Administrations, that the transition from historic payments to more flat payments is a top priority, will he be mindful of that and ensure, if necessary, that it is one of the red line negotiating positions with the EU?

[Mr Paice]

I am very happy to address that. Indeed, I addressed it yesterday in the Scottish Parliament. I am not sure about red line issues. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no requirement for unanimity, so we can have a red line issue that stays a red line issue and not get our way. On key negotiations, I can assure him and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that we have made it absolutely clear that we think the Commission’s proposals for the shift to an area basis is too draconian. The 40% first-year drop is far too dramatic, and we will support the proposition that there should be a more gradual transition.

I shall move on to the greening issue. As other hon. Members have said, that is perhaps the most important subject—it has certainly grabbed the most headlines in the farming press and in debates. As the hon. Member for Ogmore said, to put it mildly, the greening situation requires a lot of improvement. There are three components. First, farmers with permanent pasture must keep it as such and must not be allowed to plough it. There has been grave concern—and, indeed, anecdotal stories—that some farmers have started ploughing such land because they do not want to be stuck with that obligation. I urge them not to do that because we can negotiate around it. Indeed, at the NFU annual general meeting three weeks ago, the commissioner said that he did not see a problem with farmers who wanted to reseed such land every 10 years. As long as we can get that commitment in writing, we have largely resolved the issue. So there is no justification for farmers to consider ploughing up permanent pasture.

The second issue that has been debated is the requirement for a three crop rotation. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) properly identified one of the nonsensical issues with that. A further issue with a three crop rotation is that very large numbers of dairy farmers, particularly those with outdoor stock farms in the hills, will grow a field of turnips, maize or barley to feed their own stock. It is clearly nonsensical for them to have a three crop rotation. We have made that point to the Commission repeatedly. I hope that we can get somewhere, but we will have to wait and see. I assure hon. Members that we have pressed very hard on that subject.

The third part of the greening proposal is, of course, the 7% ecological focus area. The commissioner has said repeatedly in Council meetings that he is not trying to reintroduce set-aside. However, one has only to listen to the language of this debate to realise that that is how the matter is perceived. The commissioner has said that someone will be able to count their hedges, ditches and I think that I even heard him say tracks—in other words, what someone has not got in production—and take out some land to get to the 7% if they have not got enough out already, as will be the case with most farmers. If farmers are fortunate enough to have perhaps a piece of woodland, they may well already be up to their 7%.

The Government consider that taking land out of agriculture, when, as hon. Members have all said, we need to increase production, is clearly wrong. However, there is a more fundamental problem with ecological focus areas. I have used the phrase that this is about trying to reach down to the lowest common denominator—the thing that most farmers will be able to meet without having to do anything—and that if they really have to, they might have to take a little bit more land out of farming.

The British Government take the view that we need to be far more active. Several hon. Members have rightly referred to our stewardship schemes. Such active management is far more important. There is plenty of science to demonstrate that, in terms of environmental care, biodiversity, water retention or whatever, active management of a small area of ground can deliver far better results overall than simply watching—for want of a better word—the 7%.

I will come back to the comments made by the hon. Member for Brent North in a moment before he leaves because I want to talk about his remarks on engagement. We are working very closely with a number of other member states to develop a proposal of what we might call equivalence measures: a menu of different options that member states can choose from, all of which have an environmental equivalence in quality terms. The commissioner has already made some good noises about appreciating the concept of equivalence, but he still seems to equate it with quantity rather than quality. That still concerns us.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Mr Paice]

Give me a minute. I see that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to leave. I am sorry if I have bored him already. Frankly, what he was saying about engagement is, I am afraid, nonsense. He obviously has a very selective group of people to whom he speaks in the European Parliament, because the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I have spent a great deal of effort over nearly the past two years developing relationships through the European Council, the Commission and the Parliament.

As I said to the hon. Member for Ogmore in our earlier debate, nowhere is there a better example of that than fishing, which has been mentioned. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has responsibility for fishing, visited Brussels four days after the Prime Minister executed—I mean exercised—his veto. He executed the issue, but exercised his veto. Yet my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary came away from that Fisheries Council having made a superb step forward in terms of the overall EU fisheries policy, which demonstrates that the British voice is still being listened to. Frankly, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who has left his place, said, the previous Government’s attempt to renegotiate the CAP did not exactly put them in a good position from which to criticise others.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Mr Paice]

I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene. I suppose that I have provoked him.

[Barry Gardiner]

Not at all. I apologise that I have to leave, Mr Sheridan. I am delighted to hear what the Minister has said, but, of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I have two further short points to make about greening. First, it is a good example of something where one size does not fit all. Others have used the same phrase; we have used it regularly in Brussels. We have tried to persuade Commissioner Ciolos that he needs to accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, there are a vast range of farm sizes, types, soils, topographies and so on across the EU. The rigid three-legged stool that the commissioner has invented for greening the CAP is too inflexible to meet all those needs. I fear that, as I suggested earlier, he is simply trying to deliver something that most farmers could achieve.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Equivalence is a welcome development. Although, understandably, the focus of the UK negotiating team will be very much on how it will apply here, what work are they doing about ensuring that equivalence is not used as an excuse in other member nations for avoiding delivering those environmental goods? We must refer to that moral duty to try to raise the level throughout the EU, which is where the greening measures are probably intended to impact most heavily. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that equivalence raises the floor and is not used as an excuse for abdicating any responsibility for the measures?

[Mr Paice]

The best answer I can give the hon. Gentleman is to point to what the Commissioner said at the NFU conference a few weeks ago, which I have already mentioned. He said that people in Britain are the “champions”—that was his word—of environmental conservation, stewardship and so on, and he did not want to penalise us. Therefore, we are using our own experience as the benchmark. We will be pressing the fact that standards need to be raised, rather than reaching down to the lowest common denominator, as I have suggested. My phrase “equivalence” is not about whatever is down at that level; it is about what is at a higher level and trying to raise concern for the environment and so on across the whole of the EU, including in those member states where lip service is barely paid to the matter.

I shall make a final point on greening. I should have mentioned this earlier as it was raised by several hon. Members. I have said publicly in writing in many places that any British—sorry, I meant English farmer in this context, although there will be similarities in the rest of the UK. Any English farmer who is either in a stewardship scheme or who is considering renewing or entering one need not be concerned about any changes that may come. I have said clearly that if—we hope that this will not happen—the outcome of the negotiations are to someone’s detriment, we will allow them to opt out at that stage with no penalty. I cannot be clearer than that; that is absolutely the case.

A number of Members referred to capping. Capping is, first of all, anti-competitive and does not stimulate businesses to grow. It will give the wrong message to the industry, which we want to be competitive. Secondly, in its proposed form, we think that the capping is quite bureaucratic. Bringing labour costs into it will complicate the process, which is completely opposite to the direction in which we wish to go. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, there will be a great deal of business for lawyers in trying to find ways around it. When the hon. Gentleman referred to the Co-op, he also inadvertently put his finger on the fourth point to consider—corporate structures. Many of our largest farms operate under a corporate structure, which means that the issue of whether we break them down then comes into play.

That leads me to the closely linked issue of active farmers. The Commission’s proposals for active farmers are twofold. First, farmers should be actively farming—doing the job—and I will come back to that. The second aspect, which has caused the most concern, is the idea that the classification should be based on a proportion of farmers’ total income that subsidy comprises. That again falls foul of the corporate structure argument, because farmers may have businesses in a number of different corporate structures. Secondly, it prompts the scenario—the nightmare, almost—of having the Rural Payments Agency’s computer talk to Inland Revenue’s computer to establish whether someone’s non-farm income is at a specific level. Again, that is a non-runner in terms of implementation.

However, we have great sympathy with those who believe that the money should go to the people who farm the land. That touches on the question asked by the hon. Member for Ogmore. If they are tenants, the money should go to them. Under whatever form of tenancy, management or contract farming arrangement, the money should go to the business that controls the land. That is the way in which the system should operate.

That brings me back to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about the issue of slipper farmers in Scotland. Again, we understand that problem entirely, and we will do our best to find a way through it. It will not be easy, but it is important to ensure that people are doing something on their land before they receive any money. Whether the solution to the problem is that proposed by the Scottish National Farmers Union, namely, a minimum stocking rate—the problem tends to be associated with that sort of land—or another mechanism, I assure hon. Members that we will try to find a way forward.

A few Members spoke about the young farmers’ proposals, but, again, this is another example where one size does not fit all. The Commission’s proposal is simply that if young farmers—I say “young”, but new entrant young farmers can be up to 40 years old—have some entitlements, they will be able to get a 50% premium on them for a certain number of years. That would represent a small increase in their income, but it would bear no relevance to the size of the business and, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, it would ignore the fact that they probably would not have any entitlements anyway, because of how the system operates. Virtually every Minister at Council agrees that we should help young farmers; there is no debate about that. However, it should be left to individual member states to decide the best way forward, which is how we address the issue of access to capital.

No one mentioned this afternoon the Commission’s proposals for small farmers. The only reason why I want to mention them is that the Commission is proposing that small farmers could opt for a small farmers scheme, in which they fill in a form and get the money with no questions—I will not go quite so far, but that is the impression as to the proposal. The key thing about the Commission’s proposal is that small farmers will be exempt from the greening requirement, which we oppose. We are quite happy with the idea of a simplified scheme for small farmers, as that makes sense, but to exempt them—and we are talking about a massive swathe of farmers across Europe— from the fundamental greening obligations facing other farmers would be wrong.

There was a lot of discussion about pillar two. The Government’s position, which has not changed since we took office, is that we would like to see a bigger share of CAP funds put into pillar two, and that any reduction in the funding should primarily be at the expense of pillar one. We believe that, because through pillar two it is possible to make targeted payments for public goods, whether they are existing ones or new ones that we can develop under the ecological assessment that DEFRA published last year. For example, we could start to fund farmers in the hills for what they do for water or carbon retention. That is how one could target payments through pillar two.

The hon. Member for Ogmore asked me about agri-environment taking a bigger share of pillar two, but given that it takes more than 80% now, I am not sure that it should take an even bigger share, because—I come back to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—of competitiveness. We believe that pillar two is the best way of enhancing competitiveness, and we have already started to do that. In the past few months we have launched three different schemes in the existing rural development programme for England to fund, grant-aid and help farmers and other rural businesses to invest for the future. That investment may be in plant. For example, there will be £20 million, which I announced—I hope I have announced that; I think I have just announced it; I just have, if I had not.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Tweet it.

[Mr Paice]

Yes.

We will have a £20 million scheme for skills and training. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced last week £60 million for large schemes, and I have previously announced another £20 million for smaller schemes of up to £25,000. That is how one can help farmers to become more productive and competitive, to work together, develop new skills through the training funding and face the big challenge lying ahead.

As for the Commission’s other proposals that have not been discussed much, we are quite happy to see market support remain as an instrument, whether it is intervention or private storage. However, it has to be right down at safety net level; it must never again become part and parcel of the marketing structure, which is what it became in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, when people were openly producing just to go into intervention. It was madness, and those days must never return.

Linked to that, the Commission is proposing a global crisis fund, about which we have some reservations. Our biggest concern is that the Commission is proposing that it should be outside the budget. We do not support off-budget measures, and if the Commission is to have such a fund, the fund must come within the budget. That applies equally to the proposals on risk management.

We believe that research is central to the issue of competiveness and improving the industry’s ability to compete and become more sustainable, a key point highlighted this afternoon. We therefore support in principle the Commission’s doubling of the money for research and the development of the European integration partnership, although we need to see more about that.

I will now try to pick up points raised in the debate. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, talked about regulation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton kindly referred to the work that we have already done on that. The hon. Member for Ogmore is right to say that not every regulation is bad. What we have tried to do through the Macdonald process—we have discussed this and Richard Macdonald has been to the Commission to promote his proposals—is not to say, “We just have to get rid of regulations”, but to look at how we implement and enforce them in a way that causes minimum burden on business while achieving the standards that we are trying to achieve. We will continue to press that approach.

We have said over and over again that the groceries code adjudicator is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I am hopeful that the relevant Bill will be introduced shortly.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister has expanded on many points, for which we are grateful.

One of the things that we and successive Governments often struggled with was the complexity of the EU and its machine. Regulations will come from the least expected direction. They may not come from the Agriculture Committee. They may come from the Environmental Committee, from somewhere else, or, nowadays, from other parts of the institution entirely. In light of the MacDonald proposals, has the Minister or the Department developed anything about that early warning system where, at the earliest possible moment, it is flagged up that it might arrive on the Minister’s desk in five or six years’ time from the least-expected direction?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, may I remind hon. Members that I wish to leave five minutes for the Chair of the Select Committee to conclude?

[Mr Paice]

Thank you for reminding me, Mr Sheridan.

I will not say that we have developed a rigid blueprint system, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the response to the MacDonald report, it is clear that we understand fully the point he rightly makes; indeed, it is a point that I made when I was in his shoes in opposition. We need that early warning. The general thrust is that the whole industry—DEFRA officials, and other Departments’ officials for that matter, which is something that we are discussing in government, or other arms of the industry, all of whom who have their Brussels people working out there—feeds this back and knows, together, the moment that some official has what they think is a bright idea.

The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned Food 2030. It is fine—a good document. However, I think he would be honest and agree that it was pretty vague on how to deliver. That is why we have set up the green food project, which we announced in the “Natural Environment” White Paper last year. The green food project is bringing together all the different interests to try to see how we meet that big challenge of increasing food production and productivity, while doing so sustainably. It is about producing more and impacting less, and sustainable intensification. Whatever phrases we have been using, the green food project will produce its first report in the middle of this year. It has set up a number of working parties and is working through different themes and food products. I am hopeful that we can build on the Food 2030 document.

The hon. Gentleman asked about moving from pillar one to pillar two. For the life of me, I cannot remember why he asked me that. However, it is currently 10% in the proposals. He asked why export refunds are still there. I agree with him. As he rightly said, the EU had agreed to phase out refunds as part of the offer on the table for the Doha talks. We agree with that, which brings me on to sugar, an issue he also raised. We have made it clear that, while we support the Commission’s proposals to do away with sugar quotas, we do not agree with its idea that we should retain all the barriers around the EU. The issue of Tate & Lyle and raw cane sugar imports is very important for the whole country, not just for the 1,000-odd people who work in the refinery. We are determined to continue to press forward on that.

The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about producer organisations. He is entirely right. There is a great deal of noise about their importance, and we share that view. We would like to see many more farmers working together in producer organisations. Britain has a chequered history of producer organisations, co-operatives, farmer-controlled businesses, or whatever we call them. The only carrot being held out by the Commission is that of being exempt from competition law. That prompts two questions. Is it a carrot? For most producer organisations, it is not. The idea of having 20% of their market—where most competition law clicks in, or even higher—is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. It also prompts the question: is it actually right to exempt farmers, co-operatives or producer organisations from competition law? The most reasonable answer to that is no. Why should they be any more exempt than any other? Why should they not comply with competition law?

The EU’s proposals have a long way to go. We think that it will be at least a year, probably more, before we secure a final outcome. As several hon. Members have said, there will be a lot more discussion. The proposals will evolve through the European Parliament and the European Council. We have already made our commitment to keep the House informed as much as possible as that goes forward. I, for one, foolishly—I will regret saying this—will welcome further debates, as we go forward, to keep the House informed and to help the Government decide on new positions. I hope that is helpful.

Single Payment Scheme

James Paice Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

In my statement of 11 January 2012, Official Report, column 16 WS, I explained that the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) had met its first performance indicator for the 2011 Single Payment Scheme (SPS.) The Agency’s second performance indicator for the scheme was to pay 95% of both the number of eligible claimants and of the total estimated fund value by the end of March. I can now confirm to the House that these figures have been reached over three weeks ahead of schedule and significantly earlier than has been achieved in any previous year.

As at 5 March, RPA had made SPS 2011 payments totalling £1.651 billion (95.4%) to 100,605 eligible claimants (96%). The Agency will be making contact shortly with claimants who are not due a payment, for example because they no longer have entitlements. For the remaining 3,500 or so farmers, the focus continues to be on validating claims and making related payments as soon as possible. Where that has not been possible by the end of March, RPA will contact those affected to explain the position on their claim, including any corrective work and payment adjustments related to previous scheme years. That work is important to ensure legacy issues are addressed and so help provide the platform for further improvements in payment performance for the 2012 scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

12. What progress she has made in reducing regulatory burdens on farmers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

We published the Government’s full response to the farming regulation taskforce on 21 February. There were more than 200 recommendations, and our response sets out clear commitments to take action and to address most of the recommendations. We are already working to implement those commitments in partnership with the farming industry, and an implementation group chaired by Richard Macdonald himself will ensure that we deliver on them.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend. The House will know that Herefordshire is blessed with some of the finest farmland and farmers in the country, but many farmers in my constituency who are members of voluntary schemes such as “Freedom Food” are keen to know whether such schemes will be given a lighter-touch regulation and inspection regime, as recommended by the red tape review.

[Mr Paice]

I cannot be specific at this stage about the “Freedom Food” scheme, but the principle to which my hon. Friend refers is absolutely correct. I assure him that the principle of earned recognition, under which farmers are already being inspected regularly in certain farm assurance schemes, will be used as a form of risk assessment to minimise inspections on holdings.

[Rehman Chishti]

With regard to regulatory burdens on farmers, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that a replacement seasonal agricultural workers scheme is in place when the current framework is removed at the end of 2013?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is entirely right—the seasonal agricultural workers scheme is an essential source of labour, particularly for the fresh produce sector. We fully recognise its importance, and my Department is working closely with the Home Office to ensure that the industry’s labour requirements will be met after 2013.

[Mark Menzies]

Farmers in Fylde will welcome the Minister’s response, but can he assure me that he will resist any further measures from Brussels that seek to undermine the Government’s good work on deregulation?

[Mr Paice]

I am glad that my hon. Friend added the last bit, because to say that we would not implement any further regulations might be counter-productive. I can assure him that we will fight very hard against anything that we believe is against the interests of the British agriculture and food sector or the British economy. That has always been the case, and we will continue to do our very best to oppose such measures.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

What steps will the Minister take to put in place regulations to ensure that the Schmallenberg virus is not extended and does not create problems for farmers who still have good-quality lamb available for sale?

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to address that issue, which also comes up later on the Order Paper. We do not believe that any regulation on the Schmallenberg virus is necessary. The important point to note is that all the evidence of it that we are now seeing—the deformed lambs and a few deformed calves—is from infection caused last autumn in the midge season. We are working closely with the other member states in northern Europe, where the disease was found earlier than in the UK, to develop the science. A year ago we had never heard of the virus, so we are having to develop all the basic science to move forward with tests and maybe vaccination.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I begin by wishing all Welsh colleagues dydd gwyl Dewi hapus, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) reliably informs me is “happy St David’s day”. I hope I have not offended anyone with my pronunciation.

We are grateful to the Minister for his speedy offer of a meeting with the chief vet on the Schmallenberg disease, which we hope to have early next week. As the Minister says, there is much that we do not yet know. Has the arrival of the virus in England led to any changes or pauses in the implementation of the Macdonald report?

[Mr Paice]

The short answer is no. At this stage, we do not see any need to change the decisions arising from the Macdonald report. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her thanks for the briefing by the chief vet. It is important that all Members are properly informed about the disease. When her party was in government it kindly briefed me on such subjects, and it is only right to reciprocate. She will be aware that I wrote to all Members about a fortnight or three weeks ago with a very clear exposition of the situation.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Minister for those comments. May I suggest that it might be useful for the chief vet to meet all Members of Parliament to give those with badly affected constituencies the opportunity to question him?

The Minister argued against the disease being made notifiable in the EU. Will he explain why, when many farmers want it to be notifiable so that scientists can build up the full picture and help develop the effective vaccine that we all want? What steps has he taken to scale up the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency so that it is not overwhelmed by testing as we enter the peak lambing season? How much will that extra resource cost and who will pay for it?

[Mr Paice]

On the last point, I assure the hon. Lady that, as this is—I will not say it is an emergency—obviously very urgent, we are finding the necessary resources. It is only right and proper that we do so. I cannot give a figure because it is all changing as we go. The chief executive of the AHVLA is addressing the issue of its resources. I am afraid that I have forgotten her first point.

[Mary Creagh]

Notifiability.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful. The advice from the vets is that that is not necessary. We are receiving a tremendous amount of information from the private veterinary sector and, of course, samples from those in that sector and some directly from farmers, which all go into our labs for testing. As she implies, I urge all farmers to report any particular evidence. At the moment, we do not see any need for notifiability, but the matter is under review.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

4. What assessment she has made of the Austrian constitutional court’s decision to dismiss the legal challenge against a ban on wild animals in circuses; and if she will bring forward proposals to implement such a ban in the UK.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

A written ministerial statement published this morning sets out the Government’s policy on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England. The statement includes our assessment of the Austrian constitutional court’s recent judgment on the legal challenge against the Austrian ban on wild animals in circuses. As a result, we are developing legislation to provide for a ban.

[Naomi Long]

I thank the Minister for his response and am aware of the ministerial statement. When does he anticipate that the legislation will come to the House? In the interim, are the Government willing to review the licensing regime to prevent the import of any new wild animals for circuses?

[Mr Paice]

I cannot be precise on the timing of the legislation, partly for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave in answer to the previous question. It will take time, which is why we believe we must proceed with the licensing process. We are advised strongly that the hon. Lady’s proposal on new animals would almost certainly fail a judicial challenge, but importing animals is anyway covered by the convention on international trade in endangered species regulations.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to the question of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), I congratulate the Government on their announcement today, but will this welcome measure be implemented by the time of the next general election? When will it be implemented? It is important that we have a date.

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend knows full well that it is impossible to put an exact date on it, but I would be extremely surprised and disappointed if it was not implemented before the next election.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Last year, Parliament voted unanimously for a ban on wild animals in circuses with the backing of 95% of the public. DEFRA Ministers showed how out of touch they are with the public and hid behind spurious threats of legal challenges in the EU as an excuse for doing nothing. They now say that they will introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows, but yesterday they introduced a water Bill that will be passed in just two days. Why cannot they do the same with the ban on wild animals—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the hon. Lady. I think we have got the gist of it, but both sides really must speed up.

[Mr Paice]

If the hon. Lady reads what I said in that debate, she will see that I made it abundantly clear that the Government are in favour in principle of a ban—that is laid out in front of us in Hansard. As I also laid out, a ban for welfare reasons would almost certainly fail if challenged in the courts. That is why we must act on ethical grounds, which means that we must be sure that our measure is watertight. It would be easy to pass legislation today only for it to be bogged down in the courts for several years under challenge, with no protection for the animals. That is why we must take the two-pronged approach of licensing urgently while we proceed with a ban.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

5. How many apprentices are employed in her Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. When she plans to publish her proposals on dangerous dogs.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I am pleased to say that we are close to finalising a package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog owners. We are considering the benefits of compulsory microchipping of dogs, along with requiring the details of non-prohibited dogs to be held on a central database. We will announce these measures very shortly.

[Stella Creasy]

Residents in Walthamstow live in fear of the growing numbers of people in gangs who keep and train dogs to use as weapons and to fight in our local parks. My constituents have now been waiting more than two years for progress on this issue. Will Ministers promise them not just another consultation on tackling dangerous dogs, but real powers, including dog control notices and a responsible dog ownership education programme?

[Mr Paice]

Is it not amazing how we started a new world two years ago, without any reference to the inaction of the previous 13 years? I fully understand the anger of people who have to face gangs of youths using dogs as weapons, which is already unlawful. The Home Office will bring forward its own proposals, separately from our announcement, as a result of the consultation that it has carried out on measures to deal with precisely the issues to which the hon. Lady refers.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Battersea Dogs and Cats Home does very good work in educating young people, especially those in danger of being drawn into gangs and irresponsible dog ownership. Does the Minister agree that education is one of the ways forward in tackling this problem?

[Mr Paice]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is undertaking initiatives, particularly with young children on the Doddington estate, where there is a high percentage of what we call status dog ownership among the children’s parents. She is absolutely right to say that education is the answer to many of our problems, but sometimes we also have to take other measures, and we will do so.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

13. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the proposals for tackling dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership before the House breaks for the recess on 27 March 2012?

[Mr Paice]

If a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that something will happen very shortly, it means precisely that. It certainly means before the House rises for Easter.

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

All of us abhor the use of wild dogs for criminal purposes, but does the Minister not agree that the law of unintended consequences may apply here, in that perfectly reasonable, sensible, law-abiding dog owners could be scooped up in complex, bureaucratic arrangements while criminals continue to use their dogs for illegal purposes?

[Mr Paice]

I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but I must point out to him that a very large proportion of dogs have already been microchipped on a voluntary basis by responsible owners. We are now trying to draw in that sector of the dog-owning community that has not done that. We are certainly not planning to create a bureaucratic scheme, but he will have to wait for the full announcement.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with representatives of the insurance industry on the Government’s policy on maintaining coastal and inland flood defences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

15. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on the spread of the Schmallenberg virus.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

DEFRA officials have been in regular contact with officials from all the devolved Administrations—including those from the Welsh Government—to discuss the Schmallenberg virus. There have been meetings and regular reports on the situation, both national and international.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Diolch, Mr Speaker. Does not the sudden outbreak of the Schmallenberg virus prove the need to preserve Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency services in livestock-intensive areas such as Carmarthenshire?

[Mr Paice]

I hope—as, obviously, does the hon. Gentleman—that the virus does not spread as far as Wales. We believe that it has come, midge-borne, across the channel, and, as I said earlier, we hope that it will not continue to spread. However, we do not consider it necessary to revisit the issue of the two laboratories in Wales. As has been said repeatedly before Committees at which the hon. Gentleman has been present, we believe that the overall laboratory services will be sufficient, under the reorganisation, to continue the surveillance.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure the House that any plans he makes to restrict livestock movements will involve proportionate measures, so that those involved in embryo or semen exports are not affected?

[Mr Paice]

I assure my hon. Friend that we have no plans to introduce any export restrictions, and that, although one or two third-party states are beginning to raise question marks over not just UK but European livestock because of Schmallenberg, any further regulations will be based on the best scientific advice.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

T2. The coalition agreement promised a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004, of which a number of Ministers are in favour. That would not only allow the resumption of hunting with dogs, but remove the ban on hare coursing. Does the Minister think that the British people really want to see a return to the barbaric sport of dogs chasing hares?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I am not going to enter into a debate on the rights and wrongs of the issue, because that is precisely what the Government have said we will do when time allows. We have said that we will provide for a straightforward debate and a vote in the House on whether it wishes to revoke the ban, and that will be the time at which to discuss the principal issues. The commitment stands.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T4. Dairy farmers in my constituency tell me of the huge mental and emotional pressure that they and their families are under owing to the fear that their herds will be infected by bovine tuberculosis. Will the Minister update the House on the steps being taken to tackle the spread of the disease, which I believe constitutes a threat to a vital part of our agriculture sector?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a tremendous trauma affecting much of the British countryside—the spread of bovine TB. As he knows, we have announced that badger culling will be piloted in two areas in the early autumn, and we have invited two groups from those areas to submit applications to Natural England. I must emphasise, however, that badger culling is just one part of a much wider, comprehensive package of measures such as further restrictions of cattle movements and testing, including pre-movement testing.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T5. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I secured a consultation on dog control from the previous Government, on the basis that a comprehensive overhaul of the legislation was required. That was well over two years ago. Will the Government commit to that approach, or will they choose to introduce piecemeal reforms, which many now believe is the preferred option?

[Mr Paice]

In answer to an earlier question, I said that the Department will be making its proposals known very shortly. I will not pre-empt that announcement. The Home Office will also be announcing the results of its own consultation on the human aspect of the ownership of dogs as weapons or trophy dogs.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

T6. This week the Government announced the creation of 12 nature improvement areas, with a pot of £7.5 million, which no doubt will draw on the considerable experience and work of the Attenborough nature reserve in my constituency. I know that the Secretary of State has a great fondness for Nottinghamshire. Will she be so good as to put on her walking boots and join me at Attenborough to see for herself the great work that has been going on there for many years?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

At the previous DEFRA Question Time the Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), said that

“there never was any intention to dispose of the whole public forest estate.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 870.]

Yet in evidence to the Lords Committee inquiry in 2010 he stated that

“we wish to proceed with…very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it.”

Will the Minister now once and for all come clean about the Government’s original intention, and is his confusion on this issue the reason the forestry brief has now been taken off him?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to confirm that the final proposals we made to the House—the only ones that matter—did not include total disposal. The hon. Lady knows full well the contents of the consultation, and they did not include total disposal. In fact, it could be argued that the amount that would have been disposed would have been much less than that, as there would have been considerable leasehold. Turning to the question of the forestry portfolio, first, this year I will be far busier with common agricultural policy negotiations and, secondly, my noble Friend Lord Taylor has now joined the team, and he has special knowledge of the horticultural sector and plant and tree disease, which is very topical at present.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

T7. The fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), responded to a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate that I secured last week. He heard that my constituent Paul Gilson had been fined £400,000 for catching too many fish. Please will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will now address the very unfair situation whereby under-10 metre fishing vessels comprise 85% of the fleet yet are allowed to catch only 4% of the stock?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

rose—

[Mrs Spelman]

After you! I say that because both the Minister of State and I have planned visits to Northern Ireland, and I am to meet Jim Nicholson in a few days’ time. As I said, at every Council meeting we have the opportunity to meet devolved Ministers, but both the Minister of State and I have planned visits to Northern Ireland in the near future, as, I am being told, does the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

No, it is not just a smokescreen. It is quite clear: we are developing legislation for a ban, on ethical grounds, on the use of wild animals in circuses. We could not proceed on the basis of the recommendation in the motion that the House considered nearly a year ago, for the reasons I have already outlined: it would have opened us up to litigation and we would have had no protection for animals while that took place. We are determined to protect animals, which is why we are going to put in place a licensing system very shortly and implement a total ban as soon as we can.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Circuses (Wild Animals)

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

Following considerable public debate and concern about wild animals in travelling circuses, the Government are today setting out their approach to the use of performing wild animals in travelling circuses in England. We are confirming the intention to pursue a ban on the use of such animals on ethical grounds. This will take time and we have today published a consultation in which we propose establishing a licensing scheme to protect the welfare of such animals in the meantime.

The 2007 Radford report on circus animals concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that travelling circuses are unable to meet the welfare needs of wild animals presently being used in the United Kingdom. That position has not changed. Consequently, we are now looking at the means by which a ban could be introduced on ethical grounds.

We have always made it clear that the Government are minded to ban performing wild animals in circuses. However, at the time this was last debated in the House there remained legal uncertainties which still required resolution as they would have a bearing on the position in the UK. In particular, a legal challenge to the Austrian ban was unresolved, including the possibility of a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It was prudent for the Government to hold back from making any commitments to a ban at that time. In December 2011, the judgment by the Austrian Constitutional Court did not result in a referral to the CJEU and on that basis we have the legal confidence to make our intentions clear.

As we develop the details and legislative framework for the ban, the welfare of those wild animals currently in circuses is paramount, and for this reason we are consulting on a tough new licensing regime that we can put in place promptly.

For the licensing scheme, we intend to use powers that are already available in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. This will allow us to make sure the welfare-based licensing scheme is considered by the House before it rises for the summer.

Under the proposed licensing scheme, we propose that anyone responsible for a travelling circus that uses wild animals in performance:

Must hold a valid licence before using their animals in performance or face prosecution;

Must meet strict welfare standards or face enforcement action;

Must prepare and follow care plans for every animal; and

Must prepare a retirement plan for every animal.

The proposed welfare standards cover all aspects of life for a wild animal in a travelling circus environment, including:

Accommodation and housing standards;

Arranging for full veterinary care;

Changing animals listed in collections;

Controlling carefully who may access animals;

Diet (including food storage, preparation and provision);

Environmental and behavioural enrichment;

Environment factors (such as noise and temperature);

Welfare during training and performance.

Draft guidance is included in the consultation package. It sets out the practical steps that circuses would be able to follow in order to comply with the law. It explains the welfare standards which are based around the “five needs” established by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (the need for suitable environment, diet, normal behaviour patterns, housing with or apart from other animals, and protection from pain, injury, suffering and disease) and applies them to the travelling circus environment.

Formal inspections would be undertaken by Government-appointed specialist vets before a licence may be issued or renewed. If a licence were issued, compliance checks would be carried out during the period of a licence, including a combination of announced and unannounced visits both to winter quarters and to tour sites.

I welcome views on the details of our proposed licensing regime. The consultation runs from 1 March to 25 April to help ensure regulations can be laid before Parliament in summer this year with a view to having systems in place to secure the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses in time for the next touring season.

Once the consultation has closed, DEFRA will consider all responses and produce a summary response alongside setting out the next steps. The regulations will be laid before Parliament after consultation and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. A copy of the consultation papers have been placed in the House Library.

Work to set out the ethical basis for a ban will proceed alongside the development of the licensing scheme.