Single Payment Scheme
James Paice Excerpts(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
In the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 14 July, Official Report, columns 40-44WS, she explained that the Rural Payments Agency business plan for 2011-12 would be updated when the agency’s strategic improvement plan (SIP) was finalised. Work on constructing that plan is progressing well and the new RPA management team are already taking forward some components. However, as there may be public expenditure implications, it has been necessary to factor in additional time for scrutiny and approvals processes before the plan can be finalised. Consequently, my expectation is that the SIP will now be ready for publication in the first quarter of 2012.
In the meantime, the RPA oversight board, which I chair, has reviewed the existing indicator in the business plan for demonstrating that payments under the 2011 single payment scheme (SPS) are made in an accurate and cost-effective manner. In doing so, we have considered progress on both 2011 scheme processing and work to address legacy errors. In line with my earlier statements, the agency has been undertaking corrective action on the remaining known legacy data problems alongside the processing of 2011 SPS claims. I am pleased to say that that corrective work on the known error cases remains on track to be completed by the end of the payment window on 30 June 2012, with further analysis planned on potential cases. Outstanding top-up payments have already been completed in respect of 2010 claims and are significantly advanced in respect of long-standing requests raised by claimants relating to earlier scheme year claims.
Against that background the oversight board has agreed the following additional indicators for 2011 SPS:
by the end of December 2011 to have paid a minimum of 86% of eligible claimants and 78% of the total estimated value;
by the end of March 2012 to have paid a minimum of 95% of both the eligible claimants and the total estimated value.
These indicators reflect a change in the focus of the agency’s efforts towards processing the more difficult cases at an earlier stage, which is expected to increase the value of payments made at the beginning of the payment window while maintaining performance on the numbers of claimants paid in that period. Each individual indicator betters or matches performance under any previous scheme year while both reducing, rather than adding to, legacy problems and operating with a much-reduced budget. That represents a stride forward for the agency but, as I discussed with leaders of farming representative bodies last week, there remains some distance to go before I could be happy that farmers are receiving the service they deserve. I am clear that further strides towards that goal must be made in the indicators that are set for subsequent years and that communications with farmers who are not paid early in the window must be improved now. I know the RPA chief executive has heard the clear message from farm leaders on the latter point and will ensure steps are taken to address it over the coming months.
I will continue to keep the House informed on the agency’s progress.
UK Forestry Standard
James Paice Excerpts(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I informed the House in February, Official Report, column 791W, that I expected the revised edition of the UK Forestry Standard to be published later this year.
I am delighted to say that we have published the new Standard and its suite of supporting guidelines today. Copies are available on the Forestry Commission’s website at: www.forestry.gov.uk/ukfs.
The documents, prepared by the Forestry Commission and Northern Ireland Forest Service, set out how we must manage our forests in a truly sustainable way. They form the practice code for forest management and detail the conditions that must be met when felling trees, carrying out woodland operations, and receiving grants. They apply to all woodland, irrespective of who owns or manages it.
The Standard ensures that international agreements and conventions on areas such as sustainable forest management, climate change, biodiversity and the protection of water resources are robustly applied here in the UK.
For forest managers, the new Standard encapsulates all the various requirements of sustainable forest management and spells out what they mean in practice. For the first time it includes principles of forest management for carbon benefits, which is a UK Government carbon plan commitment. The UKFS also provides the basis for the new woodland carbon code that gives assurance that woodland projects for carbon capture provide the benefits claimed for them.
For many years the UK has been at the forefront of international moves to protect the world’s forests. The new Standard provides an excellent and up-to-date example of our approach. It is most appropriate that we are doing this in international year of forests.
The Standard will help us strike that vital balance between the economic, social and environmental benefits of forestry. To that end, I am pleased to note the forestry regulation taskforce’s support of the Standard as the cornerstone of long-term sustainable forest management.
I want to thank all the forestry and environmental organisations who have worked with us to bring the Standard together.
Farming Regulation Task Force Report
James Paice Excerpts(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I am pleased to announce that the Government published the interim response to the farming regulation taskforce report today.
I established the taskforce in June 2010, asking its members to advise the Government on a new approach to regulation in England, from the point of view of a farmer or food processor, and on how best to achieve a risk-based system of enforcement while maintaining high environmental, welfare and safety standards. Following an extensive review, the taskforce published its report on 17 May 2011.
The taskforce made over 200 recommendations, covering the full range of the regulatory landscape that affects farming. The key messages are that DEFRA, its agencies and delivery partners need to establish an entirely new approach to regulation, strengthen ties with the farming and food processing industry and work in partnership to achieve outcomes, and move to a risk-based approach to regulation, rewarding good practice with less frequent inspection.
The report was bold and ambitious. Government will also be bold and ambitious in finding solutions. I am pleased to announce that the interim response is very positive about our progress to date. It sets out a narrative of the work that is being done, and highlights examples of how the Department and its delivery agents have already started to apply the principles the taskforce set out. We are particularly keen to take forward the principle of earned recognition and to make progress on simplifying and integrating environmental messages for farmers and we are working in partnership with delivery bodies and industry organisations to develop these ideas. I intend to respond positively to as many of the recommendations as possible and will give full details of this, setting out a clear agenda for implementation, in our final response, which is due to be published in the new year.
The interim response is now available on the DEFRA website: www.defra.gov.uk
World Vegan Day
James Paice Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
May I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on taking the opportunity to raise the issue of vegans on world vegan day and to elaborate on her thoughts and the views that she and her colleagues hold? She rightly identified at the outset that she and I will not agree on some of these issues, but I respect the intensity of her views, which she and I have exchanged several times over the Dispatch Box.
May I say, however, that I do not think hon. Lady helps her cause by some of the quite wide exaggerations she made in her speech? To talk about an intensive dairy farmer as being akin to a multi-storey car park is, frankly, ludicrous. There is no suggestion—
Mr Paice
The hon. Lady is saying something from a sedentary position—I will need to get this on the record, Mr Speaker—about cows on top of each other. There is no such question. The proposal at Nocton, which is now dead as a proposal anyway, did not involve a multi-storey facility. It does not do the cause any good to exaggerate like that.
I hope I can answer some of her questions. As she said, some of them have strayed a little from my brief. I think many of the answers are in the Foresight report, which was the Government’s chief scientific adviser published in January this year. That is all about the future of food and farming. It looks not just at the UK, but at the global demand and supply for food over the next 30 or 40 years up to 2050. We are having this debate on the day after the 7 billionth person was born on this planet; it is quite right to think about the security of our food supply across the globe.
There is no doubt that, as the Foresight report made clear, the current food system is consuming the world’s natural resources at an unsustainable rate. I agree with the hon. Lady about that. At this rate we will continue to degrade our environment, compromise the world’s capacity to produce food in the future, and contribute to climate change and further destruction of our biodiversity.
The status quo is not an option, which is why we in DEFRA have put the importance of sustainable food and farming at the forefront of what we are doing. It is the first priority of our business plan. It underpins everything. We are looking at the food chain in its entirety, with the aim of helping to secure an environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food and creating the conditions for the agri-food sector to succeed. The Foresight report—this is relevant to one of the hon. Lady’s questions—highlighted the significance of dietary changes to the sustainability of our food supply, given that, as the hon. Lady rightly said, some foods require more resources for their production than others. We all need to play our part.
The most important people in all this are consumers. As the hon. Lady suggested, they can best be helped to make the choices that they want to make when they are receiving consistent messages about what constitutes a sustainable balanced diet, and, indeed, what the products that they are purchasing contain. By providing a robust evidence base, we can work closely with a wide range of partners to try to ensure that they are given that information.
The issue of diet is complex. Across the world, cultural, social and religious factors influence the make-up of what we eat. The Government do not believe that we should undermine those influences. We see value in encouraging people to think carefully about the environmental impact of the food they eat. Groups such as the Vegan Society provide information for consumers and help to increase their knowledge. However, we also need to recognise that a vegan diet is not for everyone.
I must tell the hon. Lady that I was a bit confused about whether she was advocating veganism, was concerned about animal welfare, or was simply recommending a balanced diet involving a lower proportion of processed meat—with which recommendation, incidentally, I would entirely agree. We know that there are recommendations suggesting that people should not eat too much processed meat. However, that is a long stretch from the more extreme position of a vegan, which, as the hon. Lady said, means eating absolutely no products of animal origin. There is a great difference between the two positions. The Government recommend a balanced diet. We are not going to tell people what or what not to eat; we want people to be given information that will enable them to make informed choices.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of food labelling. As she knows, we are committed to improving it: that has been one of our prominent policies both in opposition and in government. As she also knows, there is currently no definition in law of the term “vegan”, and labelling products as vegan is entirely voluntary. However, if such labelling is used, consumers are protected by the law, because it is illegal to mislead them through false or misleading labelling. A new European Union regulation on the provision of food information to consumers will be published in the next few months, and will then enter into force in all member states. It covers the rules for general food and nutrition labelling, and requires the European Commission to draft a set of measures governing use of the terms “vegetarian” and “vegan”. I hope that that reassures that the hon. Lady that the issue is being, and will continue to be, addressed.
The Government’s promotion of advice on a balanced diet applies to vegetarians and vegans as well as to those who eat much more livestock products. A well-planned diet based on anything can be healthy as long as it contains the right balance of foods. The main issue that we face is, of course, obesity, which is a leading cause of serious diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer. It also costs the national health service £5 billion a year. The Government’s recently published document “Healthy lives, healthy people: a call to action on obesity in England” sets out how obesity will be tackled in the new public health and NHS systems, and the role that partners can play. Obesity is a serious problem, and it is the responsibility of individuals to change their behaviour to benefit their health. Most of us are eating or drinking more than we need to, and we are not active enough. Being overweight or obese is a consequence of eating more calories than we need.
Chris Williamson
The Minister says that diet and avoiding obesity are the responsibility of individuals. Does he not accept that companies such as McDonald’s ruthlessly and specifically target young children in order to force on them a diet that is wholly unhealthy and contributes considerably to the obesity crisis that the nation is currently experiencing?
Mr Paice
No, I do not accept that. The hon. Member for Bristol East reeled off a list of vegan organisations, businesses and retailers in Bristol. They all have a right to advertise their wares as long as they are selling something that is lawful. I do not believe that it is for Government to tell them they should not do so.
What matters is that we encourage people to reduce the amount of calories they consume, in whatever form. As part of the Government’s ongoing Change4Life campaign, we are encouraging people to make the key simple changes: eat more fruit and vegetables; cut down on fatty foods, particularly unsaturated fats; reduce calorie consumption; and, of course, be more active.
Kerry McCarthy
This section of the Minister’s speech sounds like filler to avoid talking about the issues I have raised. He said that it is important that people get the right balance in their diet. What do the Government regard as the right balance for eating red meat and processed meats in a diet?
Mr Paice
I cannot tell the hon. Lady that precisely. Such matters are the responsibilities of the Health Education Authority and the Department of Health. As she rightly said in her earlier comments, they are not part of my remit. There is a wealth of information, however, about balanced diets and recommended proportions and amounts, and 70 grams a day of meat is established as being a good figure.
The hon. Lady does me a disservice by suggesting I was not going to answer her questions, as I will do so. However, the points I am making now are important, and they are relevant to the question of balanced diets.
Returning to the Foresight report, which I mentioned earlier, it is clear that we need to achieve a sustainable food supply and to use the whole range of measures available to us. The hon. Lady made a point about the consumption of grain to produce meat. I have to say to her that two thirds of the world’s farming area is grass, and the only way to turn grass into food is to feed it through livestock. If we were to remove all that livestock from the system, the world would be a lot shorter of food. That is a simple fact, so what else is the hon. Lady going to do? She looks askance, but she should understand that large parts of the world will not grow grain as the terrain or climate is wrong, or the soil is too thin. Therefore, grass is the only option if that land is to produce food.
The hon. Lady also referred to the figure of 8 kg to produce 1 kg of beef. On the face of it, that is correct, but only if all the cattle are fed is grain. However, as I have just implied, a large proportion of the beef—and the sheepmeat—in this world is produced from grass. Many of the livestock never see a grain of cereal in their diet. That is the reality. Yes, there are beef feedlots in America where the cattle are fed only on grain, and in that context the figures the hon. Lady cites are right. However, to use them as if they apply to the whole industry across the world is entirely misleading. In fact, the bigger consumers of grain are pigs and poultry because they eat nothing else. They can be fed only on grain and soya bean.
On the subject of soya, the hon. Lady talked about the increasing desecration of the rain forest to produce arable crops, but the main such crop is soya bean, which is what most people who do not eat meat eat. How can one have a haggis made of soya? [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) points out, it is possible to find vegetarian haggis. However, the point is that soya is the staple diet of people who do not eat meat.
Mr Paice
No, I am not going to give way, as I do not have much time left.
I go back to my starting point of the Foresight report. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has signed up to a five-point action plan to take it forward, and that is very important. I shall now deal with the hon. Lady’s questions, and she will appreciate that I have had them for only a few minutes, although we did speak briefly before the debate. She asked about the climate change talks in Copenhagen and, to the best of my knowledge, the issue she mentioned is not on the agenda at the moment. She asked about our European counterparts and the common agricultural policy, and the answer is that we have not discussed veganism. I am not sure precisely what she wants us to talk to them about, but it is very early days in the reform of the CAP. At the moment, there is no unanimity on the Commission’s proposals for CAP reform.
The hon. Lady alleges that 80% of the European Union’s animals are factory farmed. I suppose that that depends on the definition of “factory farming”, but I find it difficult to believe. I have spoken about development policy and global food security; that is all covered in the Foresight report. She asked about the assessment we have made of the health benefits of a diet low in meat and dairy consumption, and, again, I have addressed the point. It is a matter of balance. It is not a question of doing without those things; it is question of keeping the intake to a sensible level. The figures are available from the various Government bodies. I have addressed the issue of food labelling; it is going to be resolved.
As for the hon. Lady’s question about the EU directive on animal experimentation, I am afraid that I do not know the answer. It is a matter for the Home Office and I cannot answer that. On the establishment of the proposed network of marine protected areas, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), is working very hard on this, along with Natural England. To the best of my knowledge, they will be making sure that wildlife is protected. But that is a long way from the implication that we should not be eating fish, which I thought was her approach.
I hope that I have answered the hon. Lady’s main principles. As I said at the outset, we are not going to agree entirely on this issue, but she has raised it and the House has heard what she has to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Seagulls (Coastal Towns)
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the natural environment and fisheries. He would normally reply to this debate, but he is otherwise engaged. I am happy to stand in for him, especially as I was born and brought up in a seaside town lower down the Suffolk coast than Lowestoft, so I am familiar with the raucous cries of gulls.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) because gulls are a major feature of seaside towns. As always, it is an issue of balance and getting the populations right. I recognise that high densities in urban or coastal areas can cause serious problems for the people who live and work there. Sensible and proportionate measures need to be taken to mitigate those problems.. A range of measures are already available, including, where necessary, lethal control and the destruction of nests and eggs. Those measures are regularly employed across the country to manage our urban gulls.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned the problems in Beccles. I understand that those problems were managed at least in part by the removal of nests and by deterring the gulls, and that Natural England has worked with local residents to find ways of managing the gulls that have caused problems.
Before we consider management, we must look at the conservation status of gulls. They are wild birds to which we offer protection, and our obligation under the EU birds directive to conserve the wild bird population is fulfilled in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
UK breeding populations of herring gulls have declined by 72% since 1969, and winter populations by about 50% over the past 25 years. As a result, the herring gull is now a biodiversity action plan priority species, and has been red-listed as a bird of conservation concern—the answer to my hon. Friend’s point about nuisance can probably be found in those statistics. Other gull species, including the great black-backed gull and—perhaps more importantly—the lesser black-backed gull, have also seen a decline in population, and although we sometimes see large numbers of gulls in certain areas, we may be forgiven for not realising that their conservation status may be under threat nationally. Although the population of some gull species has risen in urban areas, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of gulls found in their natural habitat.
I recognise the genuine concerns of my hon. Friend and other colleagues about gulls in their constituencies. Although the Wildlife and Countryside Act provides protection for all birds, it allows people to apply to Natural England for a licence to control problem bird species if there are no other satisfactory solutions—he saved me from having to read out the list of reasons that people can use to apply for such a licence. That licence would be granted on an individual basis, but some issues are covered under a general licence provided by Natural England that is available to anybody in the country and for which one does not need to apply—in theory, people are supposed to download information from the internet, but in reality culling is allowed under certain circumstances on the basis of the problems described by my hon. Friend. If someone believes that that general licence has been used for a different reason, the onus is on them to prosecute the case. That has happened in the past because these matters are not always easy; for example, if someone acts simply because they do not like gulls, they will clearly be breaching the terms of the general licence and be open to prosecution.
The general licence allows for the lethal control of the lesser black-backed gull where there is need to preserve public health and safety, or to prevent serious damage or the spread of disease. Many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend fall under those headings. Herring gulls have a more threatened status, but under the same general licences it is possible for an authorised person to remove and destroy their nests and eggs— I understand that that was one measure taken in Beccles. Licensed controls will therefore be necessary in some circumstances and, particularly in the breeding season, the removal of eggs and their replacement with dummy eggs—obviously under licence—can reduce the urban gull population if done for a long period. In the short term, such actions also reduce the likelihood of attacks from gulls.
Although licensed controls exist, they should not automatically be the first port of call and we should look at other measures to manage problems such as those to which my hon. Friend referred. There is no doubt that food supply is a major factor because gulls tend to increase in number and cause problems when there is a readily available source of food, especially if that combines with suitable habitats such as timber sheds.
The licensed control of gulls can prove effective in the short term, but we must look at the issue more widely. Access to food is the single most important factor controlling the gull population, and if food is denied they will go elsewhere and the problem may be resolved without recourse to other measures. It is a matter for individuals and local authorities, and I urge all local authorities to address the problem by using gull-proof methods of waste disposal such as rubbish sacks or—probably better—bins, and by reducing access to local landfill sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) suggested closing tips, but that would simply shuffle the problem elsewhere. Although the Government eventually intend to phase out landfill sites altogether, proven methods of deterring gulls without having to close a site and inconvenience constituents include the use of fireworks, visual deterrents, netting in some circumstances, and birds of prey. There is no single solution, but some methods have been proven to work.
Local authorities—indeed, all of us—should try to avoid spilling foodstuffs or leaving material around, keep food storage areas secure and bird-proof and ensure that disposal and waste facilities are kept clean and tidy. They should also try to stop people feeding the birds. The use of deterrents on our buildings is familiar to all of us in the Chamber because we live surrounded by them. In London the problem is pigeons, but proofing buildings with netting, metal spikes and so on could also be a way to address the problems caused by gulls. The fundamental answer to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, and many others, is that eliminating those things that attract gulls will reduce the problem. In other words, we should get rid of their feed and prevent them from using the facilities and buildings that they see as a habitat or nesting area.
In September, the Minister with responsibility for the natural environment met my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who has taken a great interest in this subject, and they discussed the merits of further research into the behaviour and ecology of urban gulls. Research, both completed and ongoing, has been carried out into managing urban gulls, and the Food and Environment Research Agency has investigated the movements of urban gulls, focusing on their movements between urban centres and landfill sites. It has also undertaken work funded by the Landfill Communities Fund to develop practical guidelines about deterring gulls from landfill sites. Those guidelines are in use by the Environment Agency. Studies funded by airport interests and water utility companies have examined methods to deter gulls from roosting in those areas, and such methods have been properly applied.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney referred to reservoirs. That is a crucial issue, but one to which all measures that I have referred to can be applied. In addition, I am advised that hand-held laser torches— I think it says laser, although it could be taser; I am reading my notes out because I have difficulty believing this—have been used at reservoirs with some success. I will leave my hon. Friend to work out exactly how.
A PhD study is examining the use of egg control to limit local breeding production in gulls. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who referred to contraception, is not in his place, but hon. Members will be aware of the idea of using contraception to constrain populations of all sorts of wild species. In some places, that is used; in others, it is being researched. I do not know of any research relating to gulls, but clearly it is an interesting point and perhaps we should consider it. That said, I assume that the only way to administer the contraception would be in feed and we do not really want to feed the birds—that would be a double-edged sword.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney understands that there is a range of existing tools that can be used to manage gulls. Where there are issues of public health and safety, methods such as the removal of nests or eggs or of the gulls themselves—the lethal control of gulls—may be relevant.
At the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath, the Minister undertook to consider whether there was merit in taking forward more research on urban gulls, and we are examining that now. We can consider further research to help us to develop a greater understanding of urban gull behaviour, but we want to ensure that any such work delivers practical solutions.
In the meantime, I repeat that it is, as several hon. Members have said, for us as individuals and particularly for local authorities to use the quite considerable range of tools available at the moment to tackle the conflicts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney so eloquently referred. He has used the opportunity afforded by Westminster Hall to raise genuine local concerns. Clearly, the problem cannot be dealt with in a few days. It requires concerted action by the community and by local authorities, working together over a sustained period, to take away all the things that attracted the birds in the first place. That is the bottom line, and we need to make concerted efforts to do it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue and, quite properly, raising constituency concerns, and for allowing me to give the Government’s opinion. We have heard from other hon. Members, so clearly the issue is not unique to Lowestoft. I think that all of us have in some way witnessed the problems. I hope very much that what I have said is helpful to him and to his constituents and that sooner or later they will be able to sleep at night.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Congratulations to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), to the Minister and to all the other hon. Members who have participated in what has been a most informative debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point, emphasising the one that I made about how it is surprising that so few Conservative Members are present.
Even Margaret Thatcher decided, in the end, that the AWB was too important to axe. Perhaps it would help the House if I gave two examples of the concerns about abolition that have been put to me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, had witnesses been invited to give their views on the Bill before the Committee stage, other Members might have had the opportunity to have direct conversations such as those I have had with the following two people. Richard Neville, from near Haywards Heath in Sussex, is on grade 4 of the AWB’s pay scale, reflecting his additional skills and experience—he has a craftsman certificate and a national certificate in agriculture. If the AWB were abolished, however, there would be no guaranteed protection of the extra wages reflecting his skills.
Richard Neville is particularly concerned about what would happen to overtime pay, which is currently paid at time and a half. He has to work one weekend in six and, obviously, considerably longer hours in summer over the harvest period. If he and those like him move jobs, what guarantee can the Minister offer that his new employer would offer him the same level of overtime pay? I would be happy to take an intervention from him, if he wants to get to his feet.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
indicated dissent.
Mr Thomas
He does not—perhaps a glaring example of what the reality will look like.
My second example is Steve Leniec, from near Wantage in Oxfordshire, who is paid a craftsman’s rates and whose concerns are about the downward pressure on farm workers’ wages, which abolition of the AWB will drive. The House knows that unemployment is high at the moment, and his perfectly reasonable and understandable fear is that wages will slowly drop when the AWB is abolished.
Mr Paice
We have had a number of speeches on these new clauses and amendments which I shall try to address. I have to say that for the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) to say that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is a major issue in the countryside demonstrates a serious lack of understanding about the issues that face the countryside. For the Opposition to talk about rural poverty after 13 years in office in which rural poverty got worse and worse year by year, with nearly everything they did being an attack on rural communities, smacks of hypocrisy.
I am one of those, and I suspect there are others in the House, who has at some stage had their wages set by the Agricultural Wages Board. I am not quite going back to 1948, but getting close to then. However, I recognise that the world has changed. Back in 1948, there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more farm workers. Most of them were horsemen, because horses were the main force of traction in those days. The world has moved on. Farm workers are not the forelock-tugging yokels that many Opposition Members seem to think.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not think that I was doing that, but is the Minister really telling the House that, if the Agricultural Wages Board is abolished, farmers—I understand that he was a farmer before he was a Minister—will drive up wages, rather than driving them down?
Mr Paice
The market is what will affect wages. That is the reality of how wages are set in every other—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow West and the hon. Gentleman told us everything that happened after the abolition of the other wages councils and boards. I would take much more seriously all the remarks that we have heard from Opposition Members if they had recreated a single wages council or board in their 13 years in office. They did not do that, and that is why—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, “The minimum wage.” Yes, we support the minimum wage, and we have got it now.
Mr Paice
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I respect his integrity and his contribution on these issues in the past, although I did not agree with everything that he said.
As the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, new clause 7 would transfer the Agricultural Wages Board’s powers to the Low Pay Commission and establish an advisory board of employees and employers to advise the commission. Clearly, amendment 32 would strike the whole issue from the Bill. Both provisions would continue the separate minimum wage regime for agricultural workers, although the mechanism would be different.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I want to shed some light, rather than heat. Of course, one of the Agricultural Wages Board’s functions relates to sick pay. How much is the statutory sick pay for grade 1 and grade 2 workers? How much would it be if the board were not there?
Mr Paice
All workers will have exactly the same entitlements as they currently have. Other hon. Members have made the point—I was going to make it later, but I emphasise it now, because there are a lot of myths about—that the Bill will not affect anyone in their current employment. They will be protected by their current terms and contract of employment, whether in relation to rates or conditions of pay.
Mr Paice
I will give way, but I will make a little progress first.
I need to emphasise that this is not some secretive plot, as some people would suggest—[Interruption]—or even an open one. Let us not be pedantic. It is not some plot to drive down wages or conditions for agricultural workers; quite the reverse. For many years, there has been widespread employment protection for workers in other sectors of the economy through the national minimum wage regime and working time regulations. Agriculture remains the only sector with a separate employment regime. The terms and conditions and the way that it operates are outdated and gold-plate the provisions of the national minimum wage legislation and working time regulations. There is, therefore, a heavy regulatory burden on employers, and we believe that it is hampering the industry from creating jobs and damaging long-term prosperity and sustainability.
The regime that we seek to abolish dates back to the bygone era that I referred to. It does not relate to today’s widespread legal protections. It no longer reflects modern employment practices. As has been mentioned, it discourages the payment of annual salaries, which is difficult for workers because they have no control over their own financial planning. By contrast, the national minimum wage legislation provides for the payment of annual salaries. I emphasise that all our evidence shows that the vast majority of agricultural workers are paid above the level dictated by their Agricultural Wages Board grades.
Mr Paice
Anyone in a post at the moment is protected by their contract of employment. Anyone who changes jobs—and whose contract therefore is no longer valid—will have to negotiate, just like in any other sector of the economy, and the hon. Gentleman was part of the Government who did not change that system.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The Minister is being generous in giving way, but may I probe him again on my previous question, because he did not address those who change contracts? Can he confirm that most people are entitled to statutory sick pay of £81.60? Under AWB grade 1, the figure is £153.30. Under grade 2, it is £274.86. If we abolish the AWB and people go on to new contracts on those terms—I can pull out other examples—they will have substantially diminished terms and conditions. That is the reality that the Minister is painting for us.
Mr Paice
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to grasp that, if someone decides to change their job in the future, they will obviously want to take into account what terms and conditions the alternative is offering them. I will not dispute his figures, because they are the ones laid down at the moment, but anyone changing jobs will want to consider the options available to them.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister has just referred to agricultural wages being gold-plated. What does he consider to be gold-plated about the wages paid to agricultural workers?
Mr Paice
I was referring to the wages order, not the wages themselves. The Agricultural Wages Board structure is gold-plated. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the reality is that a lot of agricultural wages order measures go way beyond what is laid down in statute for any other walk of life or sector of employment.
Andrew George
I very much respect the Minister’s judgment. He argues that the Agricultural Wages Board represents a bygone age, but does he accept that the Conservatives supported the establishment of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which provides necessary additional regulation to protect agricultural workers. If he is predicting, as a result of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, that wages and terms and conditions will not go down, can he tell the House this evening that he will confidently predict that they will either at least remain the same or, indeed, be more enhanced than they might otherwise be? [Interruption.]
Mr Paice
For once, I agree with whoever is shouting from a sedentary position. Of course no Minister can guarantee such things and it would be crazy for anybody to do that, but it is our firm belief that the overall employment situation in agriculture and in the fresh food sector will be enhanced by the abolition of the wages board.
The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives to transfer the powers and duties of the Agricultural Wages Board to the Low Pay Commission would mean the continuation of a dual regime, with consequent duplication of effort for employers. A transfer of the wages board functions to the Low Pay Commission would mean that there was still a separate employment regime for agricultural workers. There would be no removal of the regulatory burden on businesses and we would not achieve the simplification of legislation that we believe is necessary.
Moreover, if the Low Pay Commission were to be given powers to set an agricultural minimum wage rate, it would be difficult to argue why the commission should not extend those powers to set rates in other sectors—in other words, to return to the position before 1993. As it is, the Low Pay Commission does not have any statutory powers to set a minimum wage in any sector. It is an advisory body which makes recommendations to Government. The establishment of another advisory body to advise the Low Pay Commission, which the new clause would create, would introduce more bureaucracy, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
If the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural minimum wage regime were abolished, the Low Pay Commission would be asked to consider evidence in the agricultural sector, as it does in other sectors. That evidence would be taken into account when the commission made its recommendations to Government on the rates for the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage rate would thus reflect the situation for agricultural workers. I have emphasised the point about retention of existing contractual rights.
The current evidence shows that for permanent workers aged over 21, well over half were paid well above the hourly minimum wage for the relevant grades in both 2009 and 2010. As in all other industries, agricultural workers with the right qualifications and aptitudes would continue to be able to command a premium. Lower skilled workers who were paid at or around the grade 1 agricultural minimum wage rate would be protected by the national minimum wage requirements. As has been mentioned, the lowest agricultural wage rate is just 2p per hour above the national minimum wage.
The Government would encourage industry representatives to work together to provide benchmarks for agricultural wage rates. As Members know, a non-statutory approach to wage setting works in many other industries, such as the construction sector, and although there are differences between the sectors, there is no reason why a similar approach should not work in agriculture.
I have discussed the matter with the National Farmers Union and urged it to introduce advisory levels of pay annually, in conjunction with the revisions to the minimum wage and annual levels of premium. The current premiums paid for grades above grade 1 are certain percentages above the basic grade. There is no reason why any employer who wants to employ somebody who they classify as a craftsman, a foreman or whatever grade they wish, cannot continue to use the minimum wage as the base for adding whatever premium they consider appropriate. The annual uprating of the minimum wage would be the opportunity for annual changes to agricultural wages.
In Committee and again tonight, there was considerable debate about the position of the Agricultural Wages Board in Wales. I accept that the Welsh Government take a different view. We are continuing to engage with them on the arrangements that should apply to agricultural workers in Wales.
Finally, the future of the board will be subject to public consultation, as required by the provisions of the Bill. We hope to consult before the end of the year. That will ensure that the consultation is widely advertised to meet the requirements of the Bill. Equally important and relevant to points that have been made tonight, an impact assessment and equality impact assessment will be published as part of the consultation.
That brings me to the issue of £9 million being taken out of the economy, which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said—well, it was broadcast this morning, but I suspect that, like me, she did not actually say it this morning—was per year. The figure of £9 million was one of a number of possible scenarios, but I will not take it back. It did originate from DEFRA, but it was not an official impact assessment. I do not dispute its origin, but the figure was £9 million over 10 years—less than £1 million a year.
Mr Anderson
Is the Minister telling the House that the measure will cost workers £9 million, when the AWB cost only £270,000, to quote the figures read out at the other end of the Chamber?
Mr Paice
The hon. Gentleman is mixing his figures. Nobody is disputing £270,000-odd as the annual cost of running the board. That is not the reason for abolishing it. The purpose of abolition, as we have tried to say, is to release the industry and free it up to increase employment opportunities.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I have seen a DEFRA impact assessment, which says that the cumulative impact of holiday pay and reductions in sick pay is £90 million over 10 years, which is where the £9 million a year net present value comes from. I am happy to send the Minister that document if he has not seen it yet.
Mr Paice
I am happy to debate that matter with the hon. Lady outside. [Interruption.] I do not have the document to hand and I am not in a position to dispute the point. I certainly do not wish to be responsible for misleading the House.
On the second part of this group of amendments about the loss of an independent voice for rural communities, the Government have clearly stated that they are firmly of the view that democratically accountable Ministers should take responsibility for policy functions. A single centre of rural expertise, the rural communities policy unit operating within DEFRA, has already been able to engage more effectively since it was started earlier this year. It is already established.
In response to two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, I should say that the commission has not been legally disbanded. That is part of the proposal in the Bill. The rural advocate’s post to which he referred is not a statutory post. It did not require any legislative change.
The work programme of the rural communities policy unit will shortly be published on the DEFRA website and the unit will be using a range of methods to provide public updates about progress and impact. I emphasise that we believe it is DEFRA Ministers who are primarily responsible for ensuring that rural issues are championed within the whole of Government. There are many rural commentators and independent organisations who already advocate strongly, work to us and see us regularly, and all of us are Ministers with strong rural backgrounds. It is our job to be accountable to Parliament for the way that we fulfil our role as rural champions. We will publish various documents and policy proposals over the coming weeks and months to demonstrate clearly that we understand the real needs of rural communities.
I am pleased to say that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has indicated that it will wish to scrutinise the work of the rural communities policy unit. The Government welcome that as further evidence of the importance that many in this House and in the other place attach to the interests of rural communities.
Mary Creagh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to apologise for misleading the House earlier. The total loss to agricultural workers is in fact £93 million over 10 years.
Mr Paice
The House will have heard the hon. Lady’s apology.
If new clauses 8 and 9 were agreed to, we would create two new statutory bodies, an office of rural affairs and a rural advocate, both of which would be responsible for exercising the advocacy, advice and watchdog functions currently undertaken by the CRC. Instead of moving towards a single source of rural expertise, we would be funding two new organisations to gather evidence of rural impacts and to seek to bring about changes in policy, which would be a muddled arrangement, and, if anything, replicate and extend the duplication of functions that we seek to address.
We have had a long debate. I am conscious that other Members want to move on to other issues. There are other things that I could say about rural communities, but suffice it to say that we have a Government and a Department that passionately care about rural communities, and in that light I ask my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives to withdraw the new clause.
Andrew George
I am conscious that we have still to debate the Youth Justice Board and S4C, so I will not detain the House unnecessarily. However, I should like to respond to the Minister’s comments on the new clauses and his comments on the Commission for Rural Communities. New clauses 8 and 9 were mutually exclusive, so they would not both have to be agreed to. I appreciate that they may not be sufficiently technically adequate to achieve my objective, but the Minister must accept the need for some independent, out-of-Government advocate, and I hope that some overarching brief to maintain the rural perspective is a debate that we can still have, as the Minister acknowledges that the issue requires affirmative resolution following this enabling legislation.
I will not respond to all the Minister’s remarks on new clause 7, which dominated the debate, but he predicted that it would not drive down wages and conditions, and I respect his judgment. That is obviously a brave prediction, but when I asked whether he could predict that it would at least protect and result in the exceptional enhancement of agricultural workers’ wages and conditions, he could not provide that reassurance. I am pleased that in the past Conservatives supported the very necessary legislation to establish the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The Minister said that this reflected a bygone age, but the bygone age is one before gangs and gangworkers were brought in and exploited in the manner in which they have been. That issue has been addressed, but agricultural workers are still very much present. After the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, should that proceed, it is predicted that we still need to attract another 60,000 agricultural workers over the next 10 years, which will be a challenge indeed.
I accept that new clause 7 is technically deficient, but I still believe that the Government should reflect on the proposal to bring responsibility for the enforcement of the regulations under another body such as the Low Pay Commission. Given that we are not making the decision today to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, we have had a good debate and there are other matters for consideration, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Youth Justice Board powers and responsibilities in relation to Wales
‘A joint committee shall be established to oversee the exercise of powers and responsibilities relating to youth justice jointly between the Youth Justice Board and Ministers of the National Assembly for Wales.’.—(Alun Michael.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Live Animal Exports (Port of Ramsgate)
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
Let me start by thanking and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on seeking this debate to raise an issue that is of great concern not only to her constituents and residents in the wider area of Thanet but to me and to my Department, and to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, some of whom I am pleased to see have stayed for the debate.
I emphasise that, as stated in the coalition agreement, this Government are committed to the highest standards of animal welfare, including their transport—how it is done and where it is done. Clearly, the Government would prefer animals to be slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production; and as far as breeding stock is concerned, we would like the trade to be only in meat or in germ plasm, because that is preferable to one based on live animals. That also has advantages in terms of animal welfare because it helps with our own domestic slaughter and in developing our own enterprise, business and industry. Moreover, as my hon. Friend rightly said, we now have all the butchery expertise to cater for whatever particular specifications overseas customers demand.
As my hon. Friend said, the previous Government recognised that such a trade in live animals is lawful provided that the safeguards laid down in the European Union and in our own national welfare-in-transport legislation are observed. Whatever we may think about this, the Government have to comply with our international obligations.
Naomi Long
Would the Minister advocate the tightening of the international rules to allow for cross-border trade in the case of operators who neighbour a border—for example, between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—with another slaughterhouse on the other side in order to avoid long, arduous journeys such as those described by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys)?
Mr Paice
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will come to some of those points. Yes, there is a distinction between cases where there happens to be a border, but it is a few miles to an abattoir, and the sort of journey to which my hon. Friend has referred.
The safeguards that I mentioned include the need for all commercial transporters of animals to be authorised and for drivers to pass a competency test. Indeed, I passed one myself. For long journeys, vehicles must be inspected and approved by qualified engineers working for authorised private vehicle inspection bodies. Also, for long journeys, transporters must apply for a journey log for each journey that provides the details of the proposed route, and these applications are checked by the Animal Health and Veterinary Agency before they are approved. More importantly, the journey logs have to be updated by the transporter as the journey progresses and returned once the journey is completed, and we then check whether the actual journey was in line with the original application. If there were any variations, they need to be investigated to see whether they were consistent with the legislation.
There are many other safeguards in the transport legislation, such as the fitness-to-travel rules in terms of the animal itself and technical requirements on space allowances, ventilation, water, and so on. I want to emphasise that the commercial transport of animals on journeys of more than eight hours is highly regulated. On top of all the checks before and after a long journey, inspectors undertake risk-based checks on consignments, either when the animals are loaded at the point of departure or on arrival at the port of Ramsgate. They have powers on discovery of any infringement by individual transporters—that has happened a number of times—and that can lead to suspension or revocation of the transporter’s authorisation to transport animals or the withdrawal of their vehicle approval certificate. I emphasise and, in effect, give a warning that all those engaged in this trade must ensure that they are fully in compliance with all the regulations, because we will continue to be as tough as possible on this trade. It has been the subject of a number of legal challenges over the years by local authorities and port authorities.
The trade in live animals to the continent for slaughter has fluctuated markedly, as my hon. Friend said. There have been periods, such as during the outbreaks of BSE, foot and mouth and, more recently, tuberculosis, when the trade has been halted or interrupted. As she rightly said, the scale has dramatically reduced, so its impact on the economics of the UK livestock sector is now minimal, if anything at all. The present trade is tiny at just a few tens of thousands of animals and certainly fewer than 50,000 so far this year.
The concept of free trade is enshrined in national legislation in the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, and more recently in article 34 of the treaty of Rome. The latter states:
“Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States.”
Some welfare lobbyists have suggested that changing the 1847 Act is the way forward. However, such a move would clearly be illegal as it would be contrary to article 34 of the treaty.
On the subject of EU treaties, I would like to lay to rest the idea that member states might deal with this issue through article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which states:
“Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”
Some suggest that that is a new requirement and that, therefore, long journeys can no longer be considered legal. That is not the case. The corresponding text of article 13 was previously set out in the binding protocol to the treaty of Amsterdam, which was agreed in 1997. It was therefore already a requirement to treat animals as sentient beings when the European Council agreed the terms of Council Regulation 1/2005. I am afraid that that is not a legal option open to us.
My hon. Friend raised a number of specific points. She rightly referred to the recent changes at European level to make labelling fresh meat with the country of origin mandatory. We are awaiting the detail of that, but I sincerely hope that it will have the effect that she and I want it to have. We have always supported the need for country-of-origin labelling to ensure that British consumers are properly informed. However, that same legislation must not deceive consumers overseas into believing that sheep—it is mainly sheep—born and reared in the UK are native to France, Spain or wherever they are bought.
My hon. Friend referred to the licensing of the ship and the lorries. She referred obliquely to a Mr Onderwater. There is no doubt that he is closely involved in this trade and she is right that he has been prosecuted for cruelty. I cannot comment on the authenticity of her comment about where his office is, but he is not the authorised holder of the shipping licence, which was issued in Latvia. We have asked the Latvian authorities for details of it and they say that his name is not on the licence.
My hon. Friend referred to what happened on Friday. I was not aware of the eight lorries that she referred to. However, there is no legal specification about the number of lorries allowed on the ship. The specification is about the number of people who travel. We believe that that is why some of the lorry drivers decamped and travelled via Dover. I am aware of the six-hour delay in loading to which she referred, which is clearly unacceptable. Whether it was illegal is questionable, because it could count as part of the rest period. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency issued a notice to sail to stop any further delay. I admit that I did not know until today that such a power existed. The AHVLA is considering the best course of regulatory action. We are seriously inclined to introduce a maximum period of two hours to load and sail, to prevent that from happening again.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Many of us have constituents who have expressed concerns over the years, and who specifically want swift action on preventing the sail. I think that would help greatly.
Mr Paice
I think that preventing the sail might be counter-productive, because then the animals might face a longer journey back to where they came from if they had come from, say, the Republic of Ireland. However, we are taking measures to ensure that the ship sails quickly after loading, so that loading and sailing take place within two hours. I should also emphasise that it is a requirement of European legislation that all the necessary arrangements are made in advance, so that welfare is not compromised by insufficient co-ordination between the parts of the journey.
The motor vessel Joline, to which my hon. Friend referred, is licensed to sail in up to force 6 gales. We have recently had concern that she was sailing at what was considered to be the margin of that safety level. The captain was warned, but I emphasise that that is a maritime safety issue and not directly related to animal welfare, although clearly the welfare of the animals may be affected. There is no evidence that the captain has sailed in winds higher than force 6, but if I may use this phrase, he has sailed close to the wind.
There have been a large number of investigations by the AHVLA, but I need to emphasise that virtually all of them are about the vehicles rather than the ship. That is rather an important point, because it brings us to the enforcement of the existing legislation. That is an important consideration, particularly when we are discussing long journeys. The European Commission has spent nearly two years gathering data on the impact of the legislation and is due to report very shortly. It is too late for us to make any further submissions, as my hon. Friend suggested, but as soon as the report is published we will study it very carefully. We understand that it will have something to say about the level of enforcement across the Community, but will not make any recommendations of changes to the existing legislation. If that is the case, I can assure her that we will make further representations.
Whatever the report concludes, I will press the European Commission to come forward with proposals on both tightening the current enforcement of the existing rules and reviewing the existing long journey requirements to encourage shorter, more sustainable journeys linked to available slaughter capacity. Whatever the eventual outcome, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it must be based on the available scientific evidence, not subjective opinion or belief. I have to say to her that many member states will be opposed to any such tightening of those rules, and because the European Commission appears reluctant to take any action, any changes to the current rules on long journeys are unlikely to be achieved in the immediate future. That brings the matter back to this country and to my Department.
I believe that a more sustainable approach to the transport of livestock on long journeys must be found, and I will push for that at every available opportunity in the framework of future EU discussions on animal welfare during transport. I can say to my hon. Friend that, as I implied earlier, we will use every measure available to us within the bounds of legislation to be as robust as we can in ensuring that the highest welfare standards that can be achieved are achieved. As I said, we want to ensure that all those involved in the trade, whether they be shipping people or those running the lorries that transport cattle and sheep, are under no illusion that we will deal with them as robustly as we possibly can and take whatever measures are possible whenever there is an infringement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Although I have not been able to do what I know she and other Members would like me to do, which is to declare that we will ban the trade—I am not able to do that—I hope she will rest assured that we will take every measure we can within the legislative arrangements that we have.
Question put and agreed to.
Badgers and Bovine TB
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Glindon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the Government’s proposals on culling are not being monitored and have no scientific fact behind them. The vaccine trials are ongoing and should be pursued. Unfortunately, the Government closed down five of the six trials, thus limiting what can be done, but they themselves are going to put £20 million into vaccine development.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
Clearly, there will be different views on a number of issues in this debate, and I welcome that. I should like, however, to clarify the situation on vaccines, so that the debate can progress on a positive, factual basis. As has been said, a licensed injectable vaccine is being used by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust. However, that is not a trial. The trust is undertaking a programme of vaccinating badgers on its own land and, as I say, is not carrying out a trial.
On the six projects to which the hon. Lady referred, yes, I cancelled five of them, but they were not trials either. They were called vaccine deployment projects and were purely designed to work out the mechanics of catching and vaccinating badgers and to train the operators. Those projects were not trials to establish whether the vaccine works; we know it works to a large extent, which is why it is licensed.
Forgive me for taking so long, Mr Crausby, but I think these points are helpful. An oral vaccine has not been developed. There have been a number of attempts to do so in New Zealand, as well as in this country, but we are still many years away from it. Just for the record, a cattle vaccine is more imminent but, as no doubt we will discuss, we have major problems with the EU in getting agreement to use it.
Mrs Glindon
I thank the Minister for his valuable intervention and for clarifying the issue. I hope his comments will be useful to the rest of the debate.
Mrs Glindon
The chief veterinary adviser based what he said on scientific evidence and his professional judgment was not swayed in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
Mr Paice
On the science, has the hon. Lady read the document on the DEFRA website that states:
“Bovine TB - Key conclusions from the meeting of scientific experts, held at DEFRA on 4th April 2011”?
I will not read out all the names listed on that document, but there are about 10 of them, including all the scientists who were involved in the trials and in many other aspects of the matter. The science is agreed. There should be no dispute about the science; indeed, hon. Members have already discussed the science. The document that I am referring to clearly sets out the figures and refers to 16%, which has been quoted. That is the science; the issue is what conclusion is derived from it. Has she read that document?
Mrs Glindon
Other important measures must also be upheld if we wish to curtail the incidence of bovine TB.
Mrs Glindon
I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is representing her constituents as truthfully as she can in this debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I shall try to answer most of the questions of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and, indeed, other hon. Members. I offer apologies to any hon. Member whom I do not answer fully. However, the answers to several of the hon. Gentleman’s questions are in the documents that we have published. He has asked me questions the answers to which he can discover, if he has not already read them.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon). I have several times appeared before the Select Committee of which she is a member, and I recognise her commitment to the issues. She began with a superb explanation of the situation, and said that levels of TB are unacceptable, and that badgers are widespread and densely populated, which is perfectly correct. Arguably, that population density is the kernel of the problem. She referred, as other hon. Members have done, to the random badger control trials and the independent scientific group. I should emphasise, of course, that it was the previous Conservative Government who appointed Lord Krebs to look into the issue. The setting up of the trials by the Labour Government was the result of his recommendation—it happened in a cross-electoral period.
Despite the jibes of the hon. Member for Ogmore about Jim Hacker—and I remind the hon. Gentleman that he went on to be Prime Minister—I do not believe that doing nothing should be an option. The hon. Member for North Tyneside rightly referred to the comment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that if we do not do anything, the problem will cost us £1 billion in 10 years. That is the reality, but worse than the costs is the continued spread of the disease into parts of the country where currently it does not exist. That is the fundamental issue, which has not been addressed by anyone. The hon. Lady also referred to other countries, such as New Zealand and the United States; she did not mention Australia, where the same point is true: they are all working on vaccines. However, they have all culled the wildlife that was a reservoir of the disease.
Much has been made of the issue of the science and the ISG. I am sure that time will stop me going through all the detail, but let us be clear: the figure of 16% that has been mentioned has been signed up to in the document on the Government’s website. That is signed by Lord Krebs, Professor Christl Donnelly, Lord May and a number of other eminent scientists. They all agree about it. The document contains a clear statement about what happened in the cull zone. That is after nine and a half years, so, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) about there being no new science, there is new science, because we have measurements from beyond the end of the period in question, and beyond the point when the previous Secretary of State made his decision. The new science shows that the incidence of TB in the culling zones fell by up to 34%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned, the incidence in the perturbation ring went up, but then went down and reverted to the norm. That is the new evidence we have.
It is perfectly true, as the document states and as has been repeated today, that we are not proposing simply to replicate the ISG approach, because we propose shooting, and we propose that farmers, while not literally doing the work themselves, should be responsible for having it done. The two are variations, and some scientists suggest that what is envisaged might not be as effective, but that is why we are conducting two pilots. We have announced—although we have not made the final decision yet—our proposal to conduct two pilots, to establish effectiveness: whether it is possible to cull 70% of badgers in a six-week period; and whether it is humane. I cannot remember which hon. Member challenged me on who would check what is going on; but there will be independent monitors on site, watching badgers being shot. There will be post mortems, so we shall examine the effectiveness and humanity of what happens, and of course safety. Those are the variations from the ISG, and that is why we should seriously consider conducting two trials.
The argument keeps coming back to the science, and the science is the results from the ISG. Everything else since then is conjecture, whether from Lord Krebs, me or any hon. Member. To answer the question about empirical evidence, there is no empirical evidence—but we are trying to find it. That is why we propose two trials. Lord Krebs has no more basis for his conjectures than I do.
Mr Paice
No, I am sorry; I cannot give way.
I must emphasise to those hon. Members who challenged on the shooting issue that shooting wildlife, whether they agree with it or not—and let us not get into the emotions of it—is a common practice. Foxes and deer are commonly shot, and the surrounding animal communities are not shot in the process.
Mr Paice
No; I am not giving way.
Secondly, we propose that badgers be attracted to a baited area where it would safe to shoot, and trained marksmen—not trained by farmers, as one hon. Member said, but trained and authenticated by external bodies—would do the shooting. There is a lot of emotion involved. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who has left the Chamber, spoke a diatribe of nonsense about this issue.
On perturbation, the ISG rightly based its conclusions on its studies, from which two fundamental points arose. First, we have addressed the costs issue by proposing that farmers do the work; it is up to them. The decision whether it is worth it for farmers is not for the Government to make; it is for the individual farmers. Secondly, we have clearly stipulated that we will expect those groups of farmers to tell us what they will do to minimise perturbation.
There are several issues. First, we believe that the applications will be for a much bigger area than 150 sq km and that it is more likely to be 300 sq km. That means that the perturbation zone will be proportionately smaller, which helps considerably. Secondly, we will encourage and expect farmers to bring forward hard boundaries that badgers cannot cross. They will be able to use buffer ring vaccination, if they choose to do so. As an aside, I should say that we wholly support vaccination, using the current methodology, if people want to do it.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) made a sound speech, although I did not agree with all its conclusions, but the issue of borders is clearly dealt with. Tuberculosis is not an issue for Scotland, which does not have it. There is virtually none in the north of England; so we can forget that. The issue for Wales has been clearly set out. The document that we have already published states that if there is a zone that goes within 2 km of the border with Wales, the Welsh Environment and Countryside Department will have to be consulted. I suspect—although this should not be taken as gospel—that it is highly unlikely that a trial would happen so close to the Welsh border.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) about biosecurity, more stringent testing and overdue testing. We propose to reduce or abandon compensation where farmers are overdue. She asked me about numbers, and I agree with her that the figures she extrapolated are well out of sync. We anticipate that about 1,000 to 1,500 badgers would be killed, as a total over the four years, for every 150 sq km area.
I suspect, Mr Chope, that I have just about run out of time to address the key issues, although I hope that I have covered them. The subject is important and I have tried to deal with it without emotion. It is easy for both sides of the debate to get emotive. If there are any points I have not covered, I ask hon. Members to write to me and I shall do my best to answer.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
9. What representations she has received from the scientific community on her plans to pilot the free shooting of badgers.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
We have received a large number of representations, including from members of the scientific community. DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Bob Watson, has also discussed the evidence with a group of leading scientists, who were able to agree on a number of key points. Their conclusions have been published on DEFRA’s website.
Graeme Morrice
I thank the Minister for his answer, but why is he blindly following the free shooting option and excluding others, such as vaccination, regardless of the scientific advice, and why did he cancel five of the six vaccination trials entered into by the previous Labour Government?
Mr Paice
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are not blindly ignoring vaccination, which we have always said has a role to play. Indeed, it is being carried out at the moment in some parts of the country. The simple fact, as we have published, is that our veterinary advice states that we can have a greater and swifter impact on bovine TB through a culling policy than through vaccination. With regard to what he called the trials that I cancelled, they were not trials of the vaccine, but deployment projects, and we decided that we could achieve all that we needed in one project, rather than wasting another £6 million on the others.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Farmers across North Wiltshire are being ruined by TB in cattle and very much welcome the recent announcement that the Government will press ahead with a limited cull. Does the Minister agree that selected tests so far have shown a 27% reduction in bovine TB and that, although there was perturbation, as they call it, around the edge of the trial area, it is shown to have been reduced in subsequent years?
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The results of the Krebs trials, which were conducted by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, demonstrated that after nine years—long after the end of the trials themselves—there was a reduction of 27%, and even 29%, in the cull zone, which was slightly offset by a temporary increase in the peripheral area. What matters, however, are the measures that are taken to reduce that increase, which is why we are now saying that any group or farmer must now put forward their own ideas about how they will minimise this perturbation.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
In a parliamentary answer to me on 5 September, the Minister said that the science showed that his badger cull would lead to five fewer herd breakdowns a year in each cull area. Last year there were more than 2,025 confirmed herd breakdowns in England, so even with 10 cull areas after 2013 the cull would prevent just 50 herd breakdowns a year, a reduction of only 2.5%. However, the cost to farmers in cull areas will run to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. Why should they bother?
Mr Paice
I suggest that the hon. Lady asks the farmers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has just said, the farming community is anxious to do something after 13 years of neglect under the Labour party. Of course it will be expensive for the groups of farmers involved, but that is up to them. This is one part of a large package of measures, all the rest of which the Government are doing.
Mary Creagh
The Minister says “do something”, but surely doing something effective is more useful. We know that the Home Secretary has objected to the cull and is concerned that it will divert scarce police resources away from policing the Olympic games next summer. The latest impact assessment, the consultation for which has just closed, put no figure on the costs, although last year’s consultation put the costs at £200,000. Have those costs risen or fallen since then and will he undertake to make them public so that taxpayers can see how much they are contributing to the cull before a final decision is taken on whether to proceed?
Mr Paice
I am glad the hon. Lady recognises that no final decision has been made, a point that I need to emphasise. The fact is that the proposals that we laid before the House, and the consultation that has just finished, were agreed by the whole Government. On the policing costs, we are in discussions, and have been for some months, with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Its attention was unfortunately but quite understandably diverted by the disturbances and riots, so it has only recently refocused, but I assure the hon. Lady that all that information will be used and involved in the final decision, when we bring it to the House.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Living as I do in the west country, I know that the Minister will be aware of our concerns not only about bovine TB, but about several other things. I gather that the Secretary of State has put together a proposal to close the vet labs in various places throughout the country, and I wondered what the rationale was for that, particularly in an area where bovine TB is such a problem.
Mr Paice
I am grateful that my hon. Friend allows me to correct her impression slightly. The decision, which will be made quite rightly by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, results from the merger of two agencies into one. All that is being closed is the actual laboratories that undertake scientific testing. The post-mortem centres are not proposed for closure, and most samples are already sent by post anyway, so it does not represent in any way a diminution of service.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
10. What plans she has to bring forward proposals to deal with antisocial behaviour by dogs and their owners.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
As the House is aware, the Home Office has already consulted on changes to the tools and powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including antisocial behaviour involving dogs, and is considering the responses. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is also considering a range of further measures to promote more responsible ownership of dogs and will make an announcement shortly.
Julie Hilling
When my constituent Pat Brennan was savaged by a bull mastiff, he was told that there was nothing he could do because the attack took place on private property. How many more people have to die or be maimed for life before the Government act?
Mr Paice
I am tempted to point out the lack of action by the previous Government, but the much bigger issue is that, as the consultations have demonstrated, some results of which have been published, there is a massive variety of ideas on the best way forward. On the specific issue of private property, that is one thing we consulted on and one thing being considered, but the problem is how we differentiate between an assault on a postman or somebody who is lawfully present and an assault on somebody who may be trespassing or a criminal.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May I urge the Minister, when he discusses the issue with colleagues throughout the Government, to impress upon them the need to ensure that anyone who encourages their dog to attack a guide dog used by a blind or partially sighted person is very severely punished indeed?
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am glad to be back, as proof that this Opposition are serious about recycling.
Far too many people, including children, are being needlessly killed or maimed by dangerous dogs, and the numbers are rising every single year. Twenty organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Royal College of Nursing and the Police Federation, are calling for a change in the law. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have already acted, so, 16 months after the end of the consultation and when the Minister said in July that the Government ruled nothing out, will he now rule something in and bring forward his proposals before Christmas at the very latest?
Mr Paice
There speaks the authentic voice of 13 years of inaction—and the hon. Gentleman now criticises us about 16 months. We have shadowed each other, and I respect his integrity and admire him, but he is really stretching credibility. I assure him that, as soon as the Home Office has finished considering its consultation, which finished only recently, we will come together to the House with our proposals as soon as possible.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
13. What recent progress she has made in banning the use of wild animals in circuses.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The Government fully understand the House’s desire for a ban and are continuing to look at how the legal obstacles may be overcome so that one can be achieved. In the meantime, we are developing a tough licensing regime that will stop circuses using animals if they do not provide appropriate welfare standards. We will consult on these early next year, and I hope that they will be in place by July of next year.
Dr Huppert
As the Minister will no doubt recall, on 23 June there was a simply stunning cross-party debate on this issue which concluded unanimously with this House directing the Government to make sure that these regulations took effect by 1 July 2012. Can he assure us that he will make sure that the Government do deliver on this, absolutely definitely?
Mr Paice
As I have just said, despite the clear view of the House, which the Government share, we cannot ignore our international legal responsibilities—that is why we are still continuing with our regulatory proposals—but we want to be able to implement the ban as soon as we can when the legal obstacles are cleared up. Since the debate to which my hon. Friend rightly refers, a lot more legal advice has come to us, either having been sought or offered, and it all confirms that which I reported at that stage.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
T2. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency has announced proposals to close eight of its labs, including both Welsh sites at Aberystwyth and Ceredigion. I am informed that closure of the Welsh sites will result in a 24-hour delay in diagnosing livestock diseases—an unacceptable period that could leave the communities I represent terribly exposed. Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace that this decision was made without any consultation with the Welsh Government or the farming and workers trade unions?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
As I mentioned earlier, this was a decision by the agency, but I understand that it was discussed with the equivalent agency and the chief vet in Wales. No sites are being closed. As I said, this is purely about the laboratory aspect, not the post-mortem aspect. I agree that 24 hours extra delay may be unacceptable, but that is not what is expected; we expect timeliness to remain as it is.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T8. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm when she expects to receive the final report of the Independent Panel on Forestry?
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
T4. Farmers and food suppliers in Wigan are desperate for the protection of a groceries ombudsman from the unfair practices of supermarkets. The Government recently promised a Bill to implement that proposal very soon. Will the Secretary of State put pressure on her colleagues to ensure that “soon” really will be soon?
Mr Paice
The short answer is yes. As the hon. Lady knows, a draft Bill has been published and has been considered by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. The Committee’s report has gone to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recently. It is that Department’s Bill, but we are pressing hard for it to be passed as soon as possible.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s negotiations in Europe on food labelling, but I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that we maintain the flexibility to keep the things that Britain holds dear, such as buying eggs by the dozen and beer by the pint.
Mr Paice
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s words. This is a policy commitment that the Government have delivered on very clearly. We promised honest labelling and we now have a voluntary code in this country and mandatory country of origin labelling across a lot of products in Europe. I entirely agree with her point about quantities; Britain has its traditions and we want to stick to them.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
T6. Food prices have risen by 6% in the last year, costing a family with two young children an extra £350 a year. When will the Secretary of State do something positive to tackle speculation in food prices and its impact on families?
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On 6 July, in a Westminster Hall debate on dangerous dogs, the Minister said in his response that there was
“real evidence that the situation is worsening”
and that
“Action must, therefore, be taken.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 485WH.]
Given that admission, is it not morally reprehensible that even today he refuses to give a date for a response to the consultation started by the previous Government?
Mr Paice
As I said earlier, the Government are fully committed on the matter, and I do not resile from anything that I said in that debate. However, as I have just mentioned, the Home Office rightly decided to examine the wider issues. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are bleating from the Opposition Front Bench, but they know as well as I do that much of the problem is the people, not the dogs. That is why it is right that the Home Office should be involved, but we will bring forward our proposals as soon as we possibly can.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I am frequently advised by potential investors in my constituency that they lack confidence in the planning process due to delays caused by Natural England. Can the Secretary of State assure me that she will look into that and ensure that Natural England is mindful of the commercial pressures on investors?
Imports of Animal Products
James Paice Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
As required under the Animal Health Act 1981 (as amended by the Animal Health Act 2002) the Government will publish today a review of controls on the import of animal products for the financial year 2010-11.
Following my first year as Minister of State responsible for agriculture and food, I welcome the opportunity again to report on the actions made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and other Government Departments and agencies during the past year aimed at reducing the risk of disease entering the country via imports of animal products.
The Government remain committed to strong action to prevent illegal imports of animal products from outside the European Union (EU) that may bring the risk of diseases that can threaten animal and public health, for example foot and mouth disease (FMD) and highly pathogenic avian influenza type H5N1 respectively. There is also the substantial risk to the economy as we know from the outbreak of FMD in 2001 which is estimated to have cost £3 billion relating to agriculture and the food chain.
Following the spending review, DEFRA with the UK Border Agency (UKBA), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA), albeit at low or no cost, have continued to undertake a joined-up approach on the overall communications strategy and seek opportunities to help raise travellers’ awareness of the rules on personal imports of animal products.
It is also pleasing to report the existing intelligence framework between UKBA and the FSA has been strengthened to improve the flow of risk information available for border and inland enforcement activities to target illegal animal products.
We can never have a zero risk but we continue to monitor and assess the changing threats from around the world. We therefore continue to work closely with the UK Border Agency (UKBA) to ensure that its anti-smuggling controls at the Great Britain (GB) border are responsive to new or changing animal health risks and to ensure it focuses on the most high-risk routings and goods.
Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, on the DEFRA personal food imports website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/personal- import/index.htm), and we will be writing to interested groups and stakeholders providing them with the opportunity to comment on or query anything in the review and/or meet officials.