Wild Animals (Circuses)

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate, but I find it rather sad that we are still talking about this issue after so much time. DEFRA officials said in 2009 that the ban could be introduced under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We went wrong when the Minister of State commented recently that a total ban on wild animals in circuses might be seen as disproportionate under the EU services directive and under our own Human Rights Act 1998. I must say that, on that point, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). Having had some contact with the Whips in the past week, I have become quite an expert on the Human Rights Act and particularly knowledgeable on article 8 of the convention.

With regard to the European Court’s case law, it is difficult to envisage a cogent argument that could support the assertion that a ban would engage the other rights set out in the convention, such as the rights to life and to a fair trail. Therefore, I can only presume that the Minister made his comments while considering a ban under article 8.

Article 8(1) has been interpreted extremely broadly by the European Court, whereas exemptions or limitations to the right have been interpreted narrowly. The right has three potentially relevant elements: private life, family life and home. Private life has been held to include the right to develop one’s own personality and relationships with others. The European Court considered that the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of the right.

However, the right has been held not to apply to activities that relate to the private aspects of a person’s life, such as those that take place in public and where there is no expectation of privacy. In the current situation, a ban relates not to the private aspects of the lives of those potentially affected, but to their employment, which essentially takes place in public and without the expectation of privacy. Equally, the ban would not affect the right to a family life, as it would not prevent or interfere with a person living in proximity to their family.

Finally, the concept of home under the convention is wide and would include travelling accommodation as well as permanent dwellings.

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

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about article 8 of the convention, but at no time have I referred to it. If he had read what I said, he would know that I referred to article 1.

[Mr Offord]

I am happy to stand corrected by the Minister. That allows me to move my argument on.

Another argument is that a ban on animals in circuses would interfere with a person’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions because it would amount to a control on how those possessions may be used, but such an interference with that right would not violate the right if it were done in the public interest. I therefore urge the Minister to consider a ban in that public interest.

The European Courts have decided that, whether or not the control on possessions imposed by a ban is in the public interest, they will have regard to whether a ban represents a fair balance between the needs of the public interest and the rights of the individual. In other words, I tell the Minister that the European Courts will consider whether a total ban is a proportionate measure to achieve the public interest aim in question.

Accordingly, it is important to consider why exactly a ban is required in the public interest. If a total ban is proposed to ensure that animals are kept in appropriate conditions and cared for by appropriately qualified persons, there is an argument that, unlike the proposed licensing and inspection regime, a ban is not proportionate to the public interest aim being pursued. If a total ban is proposed because it is considered cruel or ethically wrong to make wild animals perform in circuses in the UK, however, a total ban is the only measure that will achieve that public aim.

Accordingly, if Parliament determines that wild animals performing in circuses is no longer acceptable to the public, it will therefore be in the public interest to have a ban on the use of such animals. The European Courts would be very unlikely to question the judgment of this House as to what is in the public interest of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will forgo the obvious opportunity to use many of the numerous witticisms that I have heard during the past 48 hours about my appearance here, but I will start by simply trying to say that I will walk the tightrope over the next 10 or 15 minutes.

As several hon. Members have shown, this debate has demonstrated that, with one or two exceptions, there is passionate agreement across the Floor of the House that we should see an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. I assure the House that nothing divides us on that front. When we came to office a year ago, we had the advantage of receiving the results of the consultation to which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred, and we had to examine all the options. A ban was one of those. We did not have the advantage of the advice that he received because that was confidential to the previous Government.

We had a new set of advice from our lawyers and we had to use that in coming to our view. It clearly indicated that there were serious risks of a legal challenge should we opt for an outright ban, despite our being minded to do so. I will return to the detail of those legalities because that has occupied much of the afternoon’s debate, but it is for that reason and in the interest of avoiding a long judicial process that we concluded that the quickest way to reduce and, we hoped, eliminate cruelty to wild animals in our circuses would be a robust licensing system, which might well result in circuses deciding to stop keeping such animals.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who moved the motion, has shown diligence in pursuit of his cause. However, I am afraid his dedication has allowed him to misrepresent a number of issues, and some of that has been repeated by other hon. Members. The first is the Commission’s view about whether this is entirely a matter for member states. I remind the House that the view of a Commissioner is simply that. I have seen the letter sent by the Commission to the Captive Animals Protection Society, and I understand that that is the view of the Commission, but as I said in the House last time we debated the subject, it is ultimately the courts that interpret legislation, and our lawyers have to advise us not about what the Commission’s view is, but how they believe a court might interpret the legislation.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Had there been time for me to be called, I would have made the point that cruelty, in the sense of physical cruelty to animals, is not the only issue. People’s experience of wild animals is much richer through the internet, television and, indeed, the Cheltenham science festival, making it unnecessary for animals to be kept in captivity. There is increasing scientific evidence that there are complex emotions and intelligence in animals, especially intelligent animals such as elephants, which make any kind of systematic confinement inherently cruel, even if physical cruelty is not present.

[Mr Paice]

I fully understand my hon. Friend’s comments and I shall pick up one or two of them in a moment.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Mr Watts]

rose—

[Mr Paice]

I shall make a few more points before I give way. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin listed, as did other hon. Members, a range of other countries that have allegedly banned the use of wild animals in circuses. Many of those references were incorrect. A number of countries have selectively banned certain species. A number have rightly banned wild caught wild animals, which is a different issue. My hon. Friend and others speculated that licensing might mean more animals in circuses. I find that difficult to believe. I note the comments from the circuses that were mentioned, but we are not talking just about issuing a licence. We are talking about very tough licensing conditions for keeping such animals.

[Gavin Shuker]

I am sure the whole House would like to hear what those tough licensing conditions would be. If they incorporate travelling for weeks on end up and down motorways chained in a cage and going from place to place, many people would conclude that they are not worth the paper they are written on.

[Mr Paice]

That may well be the judgment that the hon. Gentleman and many others—and probably even I—would come to, but as we have clearly stated, we would go out to consultation in order to form a view of what those standards should be.

Let me conclude my comments on the introductory speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. He never made any attempt to justify using section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I shall refer to that in a little more detail. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse also referred to that. I respect him immensely. We shared a mutual respect when I shadowed him, and I think that remains the case, but I must correct his memory on the previous European case, without going through all the detail. He remarked earlier that the circus lost against the ombudsman, but that is not the case; the ombudsman made a damning criticism of maladministration against the Commission, based on the view that it had abdicated its responsibility to maintain the treaties by not interfering in the rights of member states, so there is a distinction.

The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the 2006 Act. I served on the Bill Committee, as did the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—I remember her efforts at that time to introduce a ban, which she described today. It was resisted by the Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and by Lord Rooker in the other place. While the Bill was on Report on 8 March 2006, the right hon. Member for Exeter stated:

“I intend to use a regulation under clause 10 of the Animal Welfare Bill to ban the use in travelling circuses of certain non-domesticated species”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 61WS.]

That was in March 2006, over four years before the general election. Whatever the good intent of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, the fact is that his Government did nothing, despite that declared intent.

[Mr Watts]

Let us go to the root cause of the problem between the Minister and everyone else. He seems to be pinning his case on the idea that someone might take legal action and might win a court case. On that basis, the House could not pass any legislation.

[Mr Paice]

I am coming to that exact point.

If the House were to approve the motion, the Government would have to respect that, but as a Minister I am duty bound to lay before it the possible consequences—I stress the word “possible”—of that decision not only for the Government, but for the House, taxpayers and possibly the animals that we are concerned about.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

No I will not; the hon. Gentleman was not here for much of the debate.

The legal advice we have received on section 12 of the 2006 Act is that although it could be used as the basis for a total ban, it is highly likely that we would be challenged on the basis that an outright ban was a disproportionate measure for improving welfare in circuses. That is exactly the same advice as the previous Government received in the Radford report, which they commissioned after the discussions in 2006. The report makes it absolutely clear that there was insufficient evidence to ensure that the animals’ welfare could be improved only by a ban and not by other means. That was the Radford report’s advice, and it remains the legal advice.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

No. I will finish with the legal matters before giving way again.

Obviously I cannot tell the House that there would be a challenge, or what the result would be, but we do have to note the advice. The Radford review concluded in 2007 that no scientific evidence existed to show that circuses by their nature compromised the welfare of wild animals. It was on that basis that it concluded that a ban on the grounds of welfare would be disproportionate in the absence of evidence that welfare was compromised.

There are two further risks from that action: the cost to the taxpayer and the risk that a court might agree to suspend the ban until legal proceedings had concluded. In other words, although the law itself might have been passed, nothing would have changed for the animals themselves.

[Stephen Phillips]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

This is in comparison with a licensing system that would be in place by the end of the year.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

He is a lawyer.

[Mr Paice]

I am well aware of who wishes to intervene.

I turn now to the European aspects of the legislation. The European legislation would apply whether we use primary or secondary legislation to implement a ban. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in her statement on 19 May, informed the House of the error in referring to an action currently before the Courts in the European Union, and I repeat our regret over that error. Nevertheless, I can inform the House, as has already been stated, that as I predicted on the same day, a case has been laid by Circus Krone against the Austrian Government in the Austrian constitutional court. We know not the outcome, but the fact that that case has been laid supports the legal advice that we have previously reported to the House, namely that a wholesale ban may well be counter to section 16 of the EU services directive, and that any subsequent legal challenge would have the same consequences that I have described.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, and it is well known in the House that I do not often give free legal advice. He refers to the advice that he has received, and I have no doubt that that is the advice he has received, but I have to tell him that in my opinion that advice is wrong, and that, having seen the quality of some of the advice that the Government receive from the European Scrutiny Committee, it is about time that outside legal advice was taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

No doubt we could lay every lawyer in the House end to end and not reach a definite conclusion. I note my hon. and learned Friend’s comments, and obviously I respect them.

May I turn to the nub of the issue? When hon. Members decide in a few minutes’ time how to react to the motion before us, I hope that they will pay heed to what I have said about the risks attached to it. It is of course a matter for the House to decide, but I hope that hon. Members will not focus on whether we ban or, indeed, wish to end cruelty, because I hope that there is no doubt about our desire on the latter point, but focus on how we go about achieving the end to cruelty in circuses, on which we are I believe united.

Although a complete ban, as advocated in the motion, might well achieve that end in time, there are, as I have tried to describe, significant risks in taking it forward with the deadline and using the legal mechanism to which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin has referred. That is why the Government have come forward with a proposal that might achieve the same end with more certainty. Nevertheless, as I say, the House has a right to decide otherwise.

I understand and fully respect the very high emotions involved, including on the issue of the ethics of animals performing for human entertainment.

[Tessa Munt]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Paice]

I am sorry, but I am rapidly coming to the end of my time.

I share the views of hon. Members who are concerned about the use of performing animals, but I also have to react to and respect the legislation that we have enacted in this House in the past, and the reality is that section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not allow ethical considerations to justify a ban, so I hope that in considering how to vote hon. Members will consider those points.

The Government are determined to stamp out cruelty to and the bad welfare of animals in circuses. We have put forward our proposals, and it is of course for the House to decide that we should perhaps reconsider them, but I ask the House to consider the legislative background against which it might ask us to do so.

Veterinary Medicines Directorate (Annual Report and Accounts)

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Written Statements

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

The 2010-11 annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate was laid before Parliament today.

Fruit and Vegetable Exceptional Support Scheme

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Written Statements

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

On 10 June 2011, Official Report, column 49WS, I informed the House about the disruption of the EU fruit and vegetables market and the impact on growers of the consequences of the E. coli outbreak in Germany, including a fall in consumer confidence and the import ban on EU produce imposed by countries including Russia. I told the House of discussions in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 7 June of exceptional measures to address the situation and support growers, and of proposals put to the EU Fruit and Vegetables Management Committee.

On 14 June, the Management Committee agreed a European Commission proposal which came into effect on 18 June and I wish to inform the House that we have launched a scheme to implement the resultant measure in the United Kingdom. The scheme is being run by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and it is open for applications now. The EC measure is time limited and it is important that those affected by it are aware that the scheme will be in place only until Thursday 30 June.

The main features of the scheme are as follows:

It provides aid for the withdrawal of produce from the market, non-harvesting and green harvesting (meaning premature harvesting for disposal) of specified produce, the markets for which have been most affected.

It is open both to producer organisations (POs) and to producers who are not members of a PO, who may make arrangements with a PO or failing that, apply direct to the RPA and be registered with them.

The specified crops are tomatoes, lettuce and endives, cucumbers, sweet peppers and courgettes.

In the UK, it applies to withdrawal and harvesting operations notified to the RPA between the 18 June and 30 June 2011.

Maximum rates of aid for each crop are set out in the regulation, representing about half the normal market price for such produce in June.

The producer notifies the RPA in advance of the intention to withdraw produce so that an inspection can take place to verify quantities, compliance with standards etc., and agree an approved disposal route.

Applications for aid must be lodged with the RPA by 6pm on 30 June.

RPA will notify the EC on 18 July of the quantities of produce withdrawn in the UK.

The EC will calculate the total of applications across the EU. If the aid would exceed the scheme budget of €210million, it will set a reduction coefficient to be applied to all claims.

Payments to producers must be made by 15 October 2011, but the first payments are planned to commence late in July.

Full guidance is available on the RPA website, together with the notification form for growers to use as part of the procedures.

The scheme differs from the proposal described in my earlier statement in respect of the inclusion of endives and support for green harvesting. Beyond those details, however, it is important to note that that the EU measure we have agreed is no longer based on a possible first-come, first-served basis, but provides for claims for aid to be treated equitably across all member states. It is not possible at this stage to judge whether the scheme will reach the budget ceiling but if it did, any reduction would be applied at the same rate to all claims. Moreover, as I set out above, the scheme we are implementing will also be open to all growers whether or not they are a member of a producer organisation.

I welcome the measure as a contribution to restoring the normal operation of the market and bringing to an end a situation in which UK growers, at the peak of their season for these crops, are facing huge commercial challenges and financial threats not related to the competitiveness or quality of their produce but as a consequence of a crisis for which they cannot be blamed. The E. coli outbreak hit consumer confidence and reduced demand and led to the imposition of trade barriers by Russia and other countries, with the damaging consequences for our wholesale markets in particular which I have described to the House. It is unfortunate that despite accurate reports that an agreement had been made to lift the Russian ban, this was subject to a certification process, which has yet to be agreed, so de facto the ban remains in place.

While the newly launched scheme does not address all the aspirations that have been raised, in particular, for full retrospective compensation for losses nor measures for the wider supply chain, I believe that it does represent practical and substantial help for growers and a viable route to reduce and undo the disruption to markets, by, for example, reducing the flow into our wholesale markets of surplus produce from other member states, as well as the immediate impacts here.

The contribution by EU taxpayers via funds which were already part of the European agriculture guarantee fund (common agricultural policy) existing budget, will thus help to restore the functioning of the market.

My understanding is that UK consumers have continued to support UK produce and I hope they will continue to do so. We will continue to work with growers and their organisations to deliver the benefits intended by this scheme and to move the industry on to a more stable situation in which quality and competitiveness will deliver the success it deserves.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

James Paice Excerpts

Friday 17th June 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Andrew Rosindell]

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money her Department allocated to each local authority for animal health and welfare work in each of the last three financial years.

[Official Report, 27 April 2011, Vol. 527, c. 409-12W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Jim Paice:

Four errors have been identified in the table accompanying the written answer given to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on 27 April 2011. The incorrect figures, all relating to the 2010-11 financial year, were Barnsley £23,266, Bradford £38,080, Kirklees £29,640 and South Tyneside £3,020.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Paice]

DEFRA funding allocated to each local authority for animal health and welfare work in each of the last three financial years is shown in the following table:

Food and Catering Services (Government Buying Standards)

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that the “Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services” has today been published. There are Government buying standards for commonly procured goods and services in 10 major product groups, but this has not previously included food and catering.

These are mandatory on central Government and we will encourage the rest of the public sector to use them. We want to support and develop a profitable and competitive food chain and to ensure a secure, environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food. Where Government lay down standards of production, they should ensure that their own purchases meet these standards.

Therefore, these standards will set an example and provide a clear, credible and workable example for the wider public sector to follow. This is something that has not been done before and has been cited as one of the key barriers to progress in driving up standards of public sector food. In particular, the standards deliver an undertaking for 100% sustainably sourced fish.

DEFRA and Department of Health economists conducted an economic impact assessment on proposals, which we then opened up for review by a wide range of stakeholders ranging from catering and food suppliers, public procurement practitioners and Government Departments to sustainability NGOs and consumer groups. More than 50 responses were received.

In response to the review, some changes were made to the criteria, which were then agreed across Government.

The standards that have been agreed cover:

Sustainably sourced fish.

Animal welfare.

UK or equivalent production standards where this does not increase overall costs.

Higher environmental standards, such as organic or Integrated Production (for example LEAF, or Linking Environment And Farming) for a proportion of food.

Seasonal produce.

Fairly traded produce.

Energy and waste management.

Nutrition.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

James Paice Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I am happy to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Betts. Surprising as it may be, I am happy to welcome this debate, because it allows me to put on the record a lot more information than I was able to in response to the urgent question a few weeks ago. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing the debate, but his introductory speech was full of innuendo and somewhat puerile humour and did not really address some of the key issues that I want to address. I am sorry that several Members have left the Chamber after asking me to discuss particular things in my wind-up speech. Nevertheless, I intend to address their comments, and I hope that they will read my words in Hansard.

The whole issue of animal welfare is extremely emotive and creates huge public concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has said, it can sometimes lead to mistakes or unforeseen consequences, but we cannot and should not ignore the fact that it is a matter of huge public concern. We also have to recognise that Governments, like everybody else, have to operate within the law, whether it is law that they themselves have passed or international law to which they are signatories. As I will explain in a moment, it is European law that is significant to this issue.

I have a little more time than is usual in such debates, so I will try to address fairly and squarely all the issues that have been raised. The timetable between primary and secondary legislation has been mentioned. Using secondary legislation to introduce a licensing regime—I will discuss that regime in more detail later—would enable us to consult informally with all the animal welfare and interested groups over the next few weeks and months. A formal public consultation would start at the end of the year, and the regulations would be in place well before the end of next year. It is not feasible to expect primary legislation to be fitted in and to go through the parliamentary process in anything like that time. We would, moreover, also have to allow a period of grace before that primary ban could be put in place, for the animals to be re-housed or for any further action to be taken.

The second issue that I want to raise is that about numbers. I do not think that there is much disagreement that the number of animals concerned is in the order of 39. I saw some figures yesterday that might indicate the number is considerably less than that, but it is in that region. We believe that only one circus is using the big cats—tigers—and that the others have zebras and camels. However, of course, a ban on wild animals full stop would include reptiles and everything else. I think that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) referred to Denmark, where only certain species have been banned and there is no complete ban on wild animals. That raises the issue of licensing and regulation.

The debate is about whether the matter of animal welfare can be accommodated within a circus. I fully understand those people who believe that the interests of a big cat cannot be accommodated in those circumstances, but that might not apply to everything that comes under the heading of a wild animal. We take the definition of a wild animal to be the one used in the Radford report:

“a member of a species that is not commonly domesticated in the British Islands; that is to say, a species whose collective behaviour, life cycle or physiology remains unaltered from the wild type despite their breeding and living conditions being under control for multiple generations.”

It is worth emphasising that we cannot be absolutely sure, but we believe that all the animals concerned come from several generations of domestic captive breeding. However, they are still wild animals.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, have referred to the previous Government’s work on this matter, the Radford committee and so on. As he and other hon. Members will know, Ministers of this Government are not allowed to see the papers of a previous Administration, but the impact assessment was, of course, published and is a public document. It was based on an initial view of the legal powers available to impose a ban. However—this is the key point and why I am afraid the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) is somewhat adrift in his criticism—the impact assessment does not give any legal advice at all because that was provided separately. I will return to that issue of openness. As he rightly says, the impact assessment makes the assertion that, under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it would be possible to introduce the legislation to impose a ban, but it does not then provide advice on whether that ban would be upheld if it were challenged in the courts. I will return to that point. The impact assessment should not be seen as being the same as the legal advice, which I obviously have not been able to see.

We should remember that the Radford report summarised the issues as follows. It stated that the scientific evidence that welfare was being compromised was not compelling and, as I said, that although section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 permits legislation to “promote animal welfare”, it does not enable legislation to be made on the basis of ethical or moral judgments about the acceptability of using wild animals in circuses. The welfare argument is given by many people, but—this is the critical bit—the report stated that a ban imposed on welfare grounds would be disproportionate in the absence of evidence that welfare was compromised and that an outright ban might be beyond the powers in section 12 anyway, even if the welfare case was made. Radford concludes:

“it is submitted that to introduce a ban on the use of any type of non-domesticated animal presently in use by circuses in the United Kingdom…by way of a Regulation made under the authority of section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would be vulnerable to legal challenge”.

That is printed in the advice given to the previous Government.

It is worth making the point that, during the debate on the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for which I served on the Bill Committee, attempts were made by hon. Members—I have not checked who they were—to introduce a ban through that primary legislation. Labour Ministers at the time—the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) was the Minister responsible then—clearly opposed that. In the House of Lords, Lord Rooker spoke for the Government and clearly stated that any measures would have to be based on science. Labour Ministers endorsed the approach that Radford subsequently supported in his report, which was commissioned after the 2006 Act.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South raised the issue of human rights. I will not resile from the point that it is perfectly correct that the impact assessment stated that no human rights issues were raised by the proposal for a ban. For the reasons that I have given, no Minister in the present Government can see the legal advice that led to that statement in the impact assessment. All that I can tell hon. Members is that that is not the legal advice that we have now received.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South referred to advice that he had received. He did not attribute it, but I guess that it was from Animal Defenders International. We also received that advice yesterday and our lawyers are considering it. Obviously, our lawyers need to take time to consider that advice, but it seems on first examination that it concludes that, in principle, England—I stress that it is just England and that this is an English measure—could ban wild animals in circuses if it were a proportionate measure. However, the advice does not appear to provide any idea about whether it would be a proportionate measure. It does not refer to the Radford report, proportionality or, indeed, the ombudsman, to whom I now come.

I will take a few moments to consider the ombudsman, because it is important that hon. Members fully understand the sequence of events during the mid to late noughties, as they are called, in the European context. That issue was raised in the urgent question, and I am afraid that some of the assertions made were just incorrect. The ban in Austria came into force on 1 January 2005, following which a circus association submitted a complaint to the European Commission on 25 May, arguing that the ban was a breach of the principle of the free movement of services. The Commission wrote to the Austrian Government on 12 October, expressing concern that the ban might infringe the principle of the free movement of services and asking Austria to explain why a ban was a proportionate response to the problem. At that point, the Commission did not regard the question of how to protect wild animals in circuses as one to be left to individual member states, otherwise it would not have asked that question.

Austria replied that a ban was the only way to deal with the issue, and it is perfectly correct that the Commission subsequently decided not to pursue the matter. However, the complainant asked for an explanation and received a letter from the Commission in October 2006, purportedly explaining why it had taken such a decision. That letter restated the general principle that restrictions on the provision of services need to be justified, but it concluded that, because animal welfare was so important, the question of how to protect wild animals in circuses should be left to member states.

The matter was then referred to the European ombudsman. In a letter of 19 February 2008, the ombudsman sought a more detailed explanation of the very limited reasoning in the letter, particularly in the light of Austria’s failure to provide any detailed explanation of why more limited measures might not be sufficient. On 3 June 2009, the ombudsman made the following draft recommendation:

“The Commission should evaluate the proportionality of the Austrian law. In light of its analysis, if it considers that Austria has not demonstrated that it complies with all the conditions set out in the Gebhard test”—

the conditions that are now in the services directive—

“the Commission should a) pursue its infringement proceeding against Austria or b) provide valid reasons for dropping the case.”

In September 2009, the Commission replied in vague terms and the ombudsman therefore made a final decision on 8 March 2010. It is really important that hon. Members read these reports, rather than just taking the selective extracts that we have heard this morning.

I will read out what the ombudsman said. He concluded:

“The statement used by the Commission in order to justify its political stance in the present case, that is, that ‘animal welfare questions are better left to Member States’ appears to be tantamount to acknowledging that, in all matters concerning animal welfare, the Commission is ready to abdicate from its role as guardian of the Treaties. Such a statement does not comply with the duty to provide correct, clear and understandable reasons to justify the exercise of the Commission’s discretionary powers to close an inquiry on an infringement complaint. This was an instance of maladministration.”

I therefore suggest that there is ample reason to believe that although that case had to close—the ombudsman could do nothing more than make that finding—in a further application the Commission may well find itself in a very different position.

On our recent legal advice, I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Chippenham has returned to his seat, as he challenged me on this issue. I am pleased that he has received the Secretary of State’s letter, which stated that we will not publish the advice itself. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Chippenham has not long been a Member, but it is a convention, under all Governments going back over a long period, that legal advice is not published any more than any other advice from civil servants to Ministers. Indeed, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, passed by the previous Government, ensured that that remained exempt, so that is the principled reason. I am, however, happy to share an element of detail with the Chamber, with your forbearance, Mr Betts.

Our advice is that any ban on travelling circuses would be vulnerable to a legal challenge both from a circus in another member state on the basis that it contravened the services directive—it is worth emphasising that although I referred earlier to the number of circuses that have their own animals, we believe that circuses buy-in or hire acts from other circuses for part of the season, so that could apply to overseas circuses—and from both European and UK-based circuses under the Human Rights Act 1998. Without strong evidence that a ban is needed for welfare reasons, it is likely that a challenge would be successful. Radford concluded that we do not have that evidence on the welfare reasons.

Article 16 of the services directive requires that we would have to meet three legal tests for a ban: non-discrimination, necessity and proportionality. A ban would meet the non-discrimination test, but we believe that it would fail the necessity and proportionality test because there are means of protecting animals other than with an outright ban. A ban based solely on ethical grounds would be difficult to justify under the services directive, for public policy reasons. A ban can only be used if there is

“a sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society”.

That is not met when we are considering approximately 39 animals in three or four circuses. Under the Human Rights Act, circuses could mount a challenge under article 1 of protocol 1. Any limit on the use of a person’s possessions must be proportionate to the aim of the action being taken. It is difficult, on the basis of the welfare evidence, to justify a ban as a proportionate response.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of licensing. I do not intend to take all the time available to me, but I want to place a number of points on the record. As has been repeatedly said, there are only a few circuses involved in this situation, and a limited number of animals. We will, therefore, not need the kind of big inspection regime that we have for zoos. This is not an issue for local government—I have to emphasise that to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), who raised that point earlier. We will use appropriately qualified Government-appointed veterinary inspectors who are independent, obviously, of industry interest groups. It is conceivable that there may be some local involvement in the inspection process, but they will be DEFRA inspectors. The clear basis of the whole scheme—obviously, we are yet to develop the detail—is that it will be self-funding and that there will be no cost to the taxpayer, contrary to assertions made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Licence fees would be charged on a full cost recovery basis. We will, as I said, publish proposals, and having had informal conversations with relevant parties—

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

I apologise for my late arrival to the debate. As part of those discussions, has the Minister spoken to the devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

[Mr Paice]

The answer is no, because the issue does not affect the devolved authorities. As I said a few minutes ago in my speech, this is an England-only measure.

[Naomi Long]

The Minister indicated that there have been no discussions. I am aware that the previous Minister with responsibility for agriculture and rural development in the Northern Ireland Assembly contacted DEFRA about this issue, because I raised it with her. Her officials had been advised that consideration of the issue was ongoing. It is being followed closely in Northern Ireland and in Scotland.

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to correct my statement if I am wrong. As I said, this is an England-only matter. [Interruption.] I have just been informed that, incorrectly, I said that there had been no contact. We have kept them informed of what we are doing, but in terms of discussions about structure and so on, the answer is no.

[Mr Russell Brown]

The Minister mentioned zoos earlier, and I seek a point of clarification. Do we keep solitary elephants, camels or big cats in small enclosures in zoos, or is that something that only happens in Scotland? Do we keep solitary animals in zoos?

[Mr Paice]

I have to confess that I cannot answer that question off the top of my head. The zoo licensing regime stands alone from the subject of circuses. As I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that is not my responsibility in the Department, so I am afraid that I am not familiar with the detail of the zoo licensing regime.

[Mr Brown]

I am pursuing this because, if it is not appropriate to keep solitary animals in small enclosures, surely that is the same with a circus.

[Mr Paice]

That is a perfectly reasonable presumption to make. I have to come back to the point about how animals are kept, which was raised by the hon. Member for Copeland, and the comments that he attributed to me from an urgent question. In the informal consultation that we are now embarking on, which will lead to draft regulations for formal consultation, we clearly need to take the advice of all interested parties—not just the circus community, but welfare bodies, a number of which have been mentioned today—on what would be appropriate arrangements to ensure the welfare of the animals in a circus, species by species. Obviously, that will vary. We will have to listen to that advice and, presumably, take it. Whatever that advice will lead to will go into the final regulations.

It is quite possible—I can say no more—that the proprietors of circuses, rather than facing the licensing regime, may say that they cannot provide those facilities and stop keeping the animals. I think that the hon. Member for Copeland was trying to ridicule that point, but it is perfectly valid. It could well be—we do not know, because we have not got to that stage in the consultation—that some, if not all, proprietors may say that the costs of licensing, facilities and the area of ground or size of the pen or enclosure are such that they cannot provide them at a reasonable cost and will stop doing so. I cannot pre-judge the outcome, but that is quite possible. What matters—we must not forget this—and what is right at the core of the debate is the welfare of the animal. It is about how we can move, as quickly as possible, to ensure the best welfare for those animals.

I return to my references to the Radford report. Following Radford, the then Government asked two zoo inspectors—I stand to be corrected, but certainly two experienced people—to visit I am not sure how many circuses but at least one to see whether a licensing system could deal with welfare in circuses. They reported that it might well be possible, which is why such a system was considered.

I have no more knowledge of what was in the Minister’s red box before the election than anyone else, but if the then Government were proposing a ban, it is for those Ministers to defend why they wished to override the Radford report and the two inspectors. All that I can say is that our advice is that a serious challenge under two pieces of legislation would be likely. I have tried to be open with the House today, and as helpful as I can be, given the constraints.

We can bring in a system of regulation and licensing that would not cost the taxpayer and would swiftly improve the welfare of wild animals in circuses, and that might well lead to a reduction in animal numbers. I find it difficult to believe the suggestion that such a system could lead to an increase in numbers, certainly of the types of animal that we are discussing—camels, zebras, big cats and so on. Someone used the phrase “no-brainer” earlier, and it is clearly a no-brainer that the conditions that we lay down will be pretty rigorous and robust, and therefore expensive to provide, so expecting them to lead to more animals in circuses I find very difficult to understand.

I have taken a little more time because, fortunately, it was available. I have tried to respond to the various points made by Members in all parts of the House. I fully understand that the subject is highly emotive and that the public are seriously concerned about the welfare of animals, as well as about the ethics and morals. As I have tried to explain, however, that alone cannot provide a basis for legislation because we and Governments of all persuasions must accept the legal conditions in which we operate, whether under legislation previously passed by the House or to which we have become signatories as part of international law. We therefore remain of the view that the quickest, best and most effective way of dramatically improving the welfare of animals in travelling circuses is by the system of regulation and licensing announced by the Secretary of State.

Single Payment Scheme

James Paice Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to speak under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Scott, and to have the opportunity to respond to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). I am sorry that it has been only a brief and an interrupted debate, because the issues that he and other hon. Friends have raised are central to a huge part of Britain’s rural economy. The debate comes at a time when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, a range of issues are before us. There is no doubt that there is an emerging global challenge as to how we will feed the world in the future.

The Foresight report produced a few weeks ago by the Government’s chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, considered all the challenges and how we can deal with them. It went through the statistics relating to population growth in the UK and the world that my hon. Friend referred to in his excellent speech. We are talking about something approaching a 50% increase in the world’s population by 2050. The report identified hunger and environmental degradation as key problems that we face.

Last week, DEFRA published the national ecosystem assessment, which began for the first time a full analysis of the environmental challenges that we face and how that feeds through to our natural capital and ultimately to our ability to exploit that natural capital for the production of food.

For all the reasons that have been given, we should all be able to agree that a do-nothing approach is not an acceptable option. There will be far more people in the world. Many of them will be much wealthier. In the emerging economies, people are demanding better and more extensive diets, often involving more animal protein. Competition for water, energy and land will increase as economies grow. All that is compounded by the impact of climate change. Water will be a particular issue, but some of the projections show that in addition a lot of current global arable land could be taken out of production. When we remember that one third of all the world’s arable production land is within 1 metre of sea level, we realise just how little sea levels have to change before we face serious problems.

In the meantime, we already have the price volatility to which a number of hon. Members have referred. I am delighted to say that the French Government have seized on that as a key issue during their presidency of the G20, which, as hon. Members probably know, meets in a couple of weeks’ time. We are wholly behind the French Government in their efforts to find ways of reducing the risks of international food price volatility.

There is no option but to change. Equally, there is no option but for every country to do its bit. For the last 13 years or at least for the first 11 or 12 of them, we had a Government who basically said that British food production did not matter and we could import it all. It is fair to say that in the last year or so, they changed tack, but far too late—a lot of damage had already been done. Our self-sufficiency—the proportion of the food that we consumed that was produced domestically—had fallen by some 10%, which is horrendous. We have moved on from the days when we worried about self-sufficiency in terms of every egg, every apple and every piece of wheat, because trade is so much more important and our modern diet is so much more international. However, the position does mean—my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to the trade deficit and so on—that there is huge potential for our food and farming industries, which after all are part of the same industry, to do a great deal more for our economy.

There are issues to do with research. I am thinking of the development of precision farming for better use of resources, the phrase “sustainable intensification” and the concept of producing more from less. All those things are relevant, but my hon. Friend focused, as I will now, on the single farm payment and CAP reform. There is no doubt that that gives us a great opportunity, but it has to be seen against the background that my hon. Friend and I have described. There are those who advocate a return to the coupled payments that existed until six or seven years ago. Although production needs to increase, I do not believe that turning the clock back and simply linking payments to production is the best way to encourage efficiency, leaving aside the fact that that would be outside the World Trade Organisation agreements.

There might be slight dissent among my hon. Friends and me about the single farm payment. The Government believe that the CAP should provide a framework that enables farmers to raise their competitiveness and produce food, while rewarding them for their role as stewards of the environment. My hon. Friend referred to the single farm payment as doing some of that work in rewarding farmers to care for the environment. He also mentioned a number of other issues. If we look at it in those terms—of course, cross-compliance exists—it is an extremely blunt instrument. It does not focus on any form of outcome. That is why the Government take the view that reward for public goods, whether environmental or otherwise, is better achieved through what is currently pillar 2—the rural development programme for England—rather than being achieved much more bluntly and less effectively through the single farm payment.

The reform that we seek of the CAP must involve a twin-track approach. It must build the competitiveness of the industry—the ability of the industry to respond to the challenges that my hon. Friend and I have described in relation to both domestic production and increased exports—but also reduce its reliance on subsidies over time to ensure that it can better deliver the food and environmental goods that we need. The competitiveness issue is at the heart of our efforts on CAP reform. We want to be able to focus more of our resources on assisting competitiveness, which is why we believe that pillar 2—the rural development programme money—is the more effective way. As a result of the abolition of regional development agencies, we are bringing that money back in-house as of July this year, so that we can focus it more effectively on industry competitiveness.

I need to deal next with what I hope was not behind my hon. Friend’s speech but which is clearly a myth in some circles. It is that the Government are somehow calling for the abolition of the single farm payment. We are not, and I cannot over-emphasise the fact. The Government recognise, as my hon. Friend said, that the single farm payment is critical for today’s farmers. The figures that he gave were correct, and I would not dream of countering them. However, the background that my hon. Friend sketched out, and to which I have added, provides us with the opportunity to develop a trajectory for beginning to phase out the single farm payment.

The NFU is right to say that farmers cannot live without it today. However, although it is reasonable to say that, over time—I do not mean over the next seven years, but over a longer trajectory—we should be looking at how to phase out that direct form of support against the background of world shortages that will inevitably lead to higher prices. That is how we want to achieve it.

I share entirely my hon. Friend’s view that the industry needs to be more highly regarded and to have a higher reputation both here and abroad, not only because of its ability to produce our food but because it is an important part of our economy. Food manufacturing is the biggest sector of our manufacturing industry, and farmers also act as carers and managers of our natural environment, rather than assailants of it, as they were sometimes painted in the past. I emphasise that we are not calling for the scrapping of the single farm payment tomorrow, nor over the next seven years of this CAP period, but we do want genuine and far-sighted reform.

The Commission has published its early proposals. After much discussion and consultation, it will produce regulations later in the year, so we do not yet know what will happen. For the first time 26 member states are now involved, and for the first time the European Parliament is a co-decision maker, so the crystal ball is extremely murky on what will happen. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the single farm payment will be continued. Whether it is a straightforward payment, whether it will include the Commission’s proposal for a green element, whether there will be further cost compliance, whether the payment could be construed as simply paying for something that is already being done or whether it will provide real added value for the taxpayer, I do not know.

I turn quickly to some of the other issues raised during the debate. They were all relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)—I think that it was him—mentioned dairy farming. Only yesterday, we spent an hour and a half in this Chamber debating that subject, so I do not wish to repeat myself other than to emphasise that the Government are fully persuaded of the crisis affecting the dairy industry. There is obviously a limit to what we can do. We cannot force up the price of milk; but as has been said, we shall introduce a supermarket adjudicator as soon as we can.

Hill farming was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon and for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). The payment is most important in those areas. Indeed, it is important to our whole livestock industry. Again, however, we believe that the right way to support it is through the use of pillar 2 payments, as targeted support for the benefits that hill farms provide the nation. Those farms are important to the social structure of rural communities in our uplands, but there are other factors. They store carbon and water in their peat and are marvellous centres of biodiversity, and the ecosystems assessment to which I referred provides us with the tools to recognise that fact.

Finally, on the question of TB, all that I can say is that the Government intend to make a full announcement on the matter before the House rises for the summer recess.

Dairy Farming

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on securing this debate. It was widely discussed when I was at the Suffolk show last week, so I was given plenty of notice that I would be grilled on these issues. I also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). I am not sure whether he was appearing for the prosecution or the defence, but his speech not only contained the gravitas that we expect but correctly conveyed the huge importance that the dairy and beef sectors attach to the issue of bovine TB, to which I will refer in a few moments. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). As he has said, there is probably agreement among the parties about where we need to go.

I will address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. He said that our food production is 40% of our total food supplies; it is actually well over 50%, and we could produce more than 70% of our food indigenously. I do not want him to think that things are worse than they are, although I want to improve both positions.

It is worth making the point that we are the EU’s third largest milk producer, well ahead of the only country that we might reasonably say could do better than us, Ireland, which has the temperate climate and conditions to grow grass for more of the year and more effectively. With the exception of Ireland, we should be competing effectively with every other country in the EU.

My hon. Friend and others are entirely right that the industry is under huge pressure. Members who watched “Countryfile” on Sunday evening will have seen yet another auction of a large dairy herd by a farmer going out of business. However, we have a slight conundrum. Although the number of dairy farmers is decreasing significantly, by an average of 5% a year over the past decade, there has been no such dramatic reduction in the number of cows or in the amount of milk that we produce. In fact, milk production in the UK increased by 500 million litres last year, and it is now almost back to the level of three years ago. That is due to the expansion of herds by many farmers, as well as to genetics, better feed and so on, which cause individual cows to produce more milk. From the Government’s perspective, we are faced with a dilemma. Are we interested in supporting individual dairy farmers or the industry and this country’s ability—to return to the issue of self-sufficiency—to produce the milk that we need at home? It is a conundrum, and I do not pretend to have the answer.

The state of the UK market is easily clarified in some round figures. Roughly 50% of UK consumption of milk and dairy products is liquid milk, almost all of which is domestically produced—as my hon. Friend has said, carting liquid milk overseas is not common. Another 25% of the market is milk products such as cheese, yoghurt and so on processed from British milk. The other 25% is processed products imported from abroad. It is fairly easy to divide the market into those three.

To return to my point about the European market and competition from elsewhere, there is no doubt in my mind that we should be able to compete much more effectively with other countries, with the possible exception of Ireland, in the 25% of the market that consists of imported processed products. My hon. Friend made a great deal of the prices being paid by our supermarkets. I am not saying that supermarkets are without fault, but the real issue is the price being paid lower down the chain at the processed end.

The latest milk prices—they are published weekly, so this is open information—say that the highest price being paid for milk is 29.01p in the dedicated supply chain for Marks and Spencer through Dairycrest. The second highest is in another dedicated pool, for Sainsbury’s, through Arla. The lowest, at 23.8p, or more than 6p a litre less, is paid by North Milk Co-op. A little above that, the supplier First Milk pays 24.2p. The table that appears in the farming press each week simplifies things slightly, but the top half of prices mainly go to the liquid trade, while the bottom half go to the processed trade. There are exceptions, but that is a general point. Increasing the price paid for processed milk would improve the overall situation for everyone.

As my hon. Friend has said, the retail market is important. The average farm-gate price in March was 26.57p a litre, which is 10% higher than the year before, although, as several people have said, costs have rocketed proportionately or by even more. However, the retail price of a 4-litre carton of milk is about 55p a litre, which means that the processor and retailer take 28.5p a litre—that is more than the dairy producer, the guy who keeps the cow for 365 days a year, takes—just to bottle, distribute and retail the milk. There is no doubt, as the Dairy Council and others have shown, that the share of the overall retail price taken by the farmer has stayed the same or even fallen, the share taken by the processor has stayed roughly the same and the share taken by the retailer has rocketed. There are questions to be asked about that, and I will come back to them in a moment.

I will discuss the shape of the industry to demonstrate to my hon. Friends that the issue is not only about liquid milk or about supermarkets. Much has been said about the European package, particularly about contracts. The first thing to say in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East is that we are a long way from any decision, because we do not have the European Parliament’s decision yet. That is a post-Lisbon treaty event that involves the European Parliament. I will come back to the other points, but we support the issue of contracts as presented by the Commission. We support the proposal that individual member states should be able to make contracts compulsory in their own country, if they so wish. As far as England is concerned, I have already said publicly that, if that is what the end version looks like, we will consult the industry about whether to have compulsory contracts, but I have not hidden my view that I do not think that they will achieve what people believe they will.

That is the point that I want to address, because my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich paid great attention to the issue of contracts. Let me make it clear that, in the UK, virtually all farmers have contracts, which takes us back to what is in them. The main reason why this matter features so highly in the European dairy package is that most dairy producers in other countries do not have contracts, so for them it would be a great innovation. Although this is a devolved issue, it is relevant to the UK and, as far as England is concerned, it is clear that the proposal as it stands—we do not know how it will end up—does not allow individual member states to lay down minimum standards or terms in the contract. It says that the contract must address the issue of price, either by setting a price or a formula, but it does not allow the member state to set it. It will be open to negotiation between the producer and processor to decide the price or formula by which the price is arrived at.

Similarly, the contract must address the issue of duration, but it does not allow the member state to lay down a minimum duration. Some, including the National Farmers Union, seem to think that the contract should include a lot more. We can argue about whether it should, but it does not. The proposition from the European Union does not allow member states to lay down detail on standards, which some seem to believe that it should. That is why I do not think that it is the panacea that some have made it out to be.

[Stephen Phillips]

Given that, as the Minister has said, the package is not the solution to the problem, and given that he has identified the discrepancy between what is paid for liquid milk to, on the one hand, those who supply it as liquid milk and, on the other, those who process it, is the solution not for the Government to bite the bullet and set a minimum price for dairy products, at least in England? Will the Government therefore support my private Member’s Bill, which will receive its Second Reading on Friday?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. and learned Friend must be aware that it would be contrary to EU law for us to set a minimum price. The whole common agricultural policy has—with, I think, cross-party support—moved away from the idea of Government setting prices, whether at a member-state or EU level. That has been the big reform of the CAP over the past 15 to 20 years, and it is right that we move in that way. I do not think that the answer is to set a minimum price. The Government’s role—I will return to this in a moment—is to try to make sure that the market is working properly. There is parity of power, wherever possible.

Let me turn to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East. We fully support the proposition in the European dairy package that producer organisations should be allowed, although we are concerned about a point of detail regarding how big they will be allowed to get. However, the only two significant co-operatives in this country—Milk Link has about 13% of the market and First Milk has about 10%—are light years away from what we believe should be the maximum, namely 25%, or the EU proposal of 33%. To be honest, that upper limit is relatively hypothetical at the moment, because we are nowhere near it. Even if the two merged—it was once proposed that they should merge; the merger was approved by the Office of Fair Trading; but they decided not to—they would still not be up to the maximum. I need to make it clear, therefore, that nothing today prevents groups of dairy producers from getting together to become a producer organisation. Indeed, the Secretary of State, in her speech in Oxford, and I have frequently said that we strongly encourage them to do so. However, Government cannot force farmers to work together, and it is for them to do so.

The final point on the package concerns transparency, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We strongly support a transparent marketplace. Obviously, there is a limit in terms of regulation and bureaucracy on how much information it is sensible to demand, but we support the principles of transparency in the package.

I am in the unusual position of having a bit of time to respond to the debate, so let me now address some other issues. The supermarket adjudicator takes us back to my point about parity of power. The Government have published their Bill, and I was interested to hear the Opposition’s concerns. I am not too clear on all of them, but one related to the adjudicator’s powers to impose fines and other sanctions, although I am not sure what they are. Let us be clear that the Bill provides the option for the Secretary of State to give the power to provide fines. In other words, if we find the adjudicator’s initial power, which might be described as the name-and-shame approach, to be inadequate, the Secretary of State can provide it with the power to impose fines. I do not think that we in this Chamber necessarily understand the relative import of that. The big retailers assure us that that is totally unnecessary, that they do not break the code, that there is no need for an adjudicator and that they are all doing the job properly. I am sure that they have assured everyone present of that. They all pay a huge amount of attention to their reputations. They want their good name to be known and seen. If we say, “We’re going to fine you instead,” what level of fine would make any difference to one of our big retailers? That is the question. The level would not be £10,000. I do not even want to guess what would actually influence their behaviour, but it would be many times that. We therefore have to consider whether that is really a sensible way forward, commensurate with all the other issues of fines, levels of fines and penalties throughout the country. I think that we underestimate the power of damaging somebody’s reputation in that way.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to incentives for innovation and development, particularly in relation to energy saving. He referred to the industry road map. I am not sure whether he or any other colleagues were present when I launched the industry road map a few weeks ago, but one of the most telling charts in the document—I do not take any credit for this, but it is worth making the point—shows that the dairy producers who had the highest margins also had the lowest carbon footprint. Fiscal incentive, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is therefore built into the system. Of course, we can provide fiscal incentives from the rural development plan for England, but the real incentive is that it is profitable to conserve energy, which the report clearly shows

We are putting in place other things and taking action on them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon is looking at me with beady eyes—I have not forgotten his remarks. We hope that the Government buying standards will be published shortly. They will lay down particular criteria, so that the Government will lead by example. The Macdonald taskforce on regulation made a number of proposals about nitrate vulnerable zones, which are hugely important to the dairy sector. We are taking those forward as fast as we can. Indeed, at the outset, I was able to announce that we could accept one or two areas relating to NVZs immediately. I am looking across the whole of that issue and am considering how we can reduce its impact and cost.

I am trying to reinvigorate and revitalise the dairy supply chain forum, which was set up by the previous Government. I want to ensure that the only people who come to that forum are chief executives or board member equivalents and that it has an important role because, at the end of the day, the real future of our dairy industry lies not in the hands of the Government, but in the hands of the industry. I am trying to ensure that the retailers, the processors—whether they are bottlers or processors into commodities—and the producers are all around the table and that they are working together to iron out the problems and take things forward. Price is important and I wholly understand the dairy farmer who says, “I need more for my milk.” However, the Government’s job is to ensure that the whole chain is working. If we can do things to take costs out of the system, it would be equivalent to a price rise, although it may not be so readily seen as that.

On income other than that derived from price, let me refer to the two big groups that I have mentioned, First Milk and Milk Link. They are nothing in European terms but, in UK terms, they are pretty substantial producer-owned organisations. They got off to a rocky start, and there were big problems with paying low prices and members having to put up large sums of money. Of course, the third group—Dairy Farmers of Britain—fell by the wayside a couple of years ago. However, those two organisations are now making progress and have chief executives who understand the new world in which we are operating. For example, the chief executive of First Milk has opened up a global pool, whereby when the price of skimmed milk powder on the world market is equivalent to 33p a litre, farmers can say, “Why aren’t we getting it?” They can get that price, although perhaps it will not be quite as much as that. There will be a pool of milk targeted at global price commodities. Of course, there is a downside, because if global commodities collapse—they have done so in the past—so will the pool price. However, such an initiative allows that issue to be addressed and is an ingenious and innovative approach.

Milk Link—I hope First Milk will follow—is paying dividends to its farmer members, which is important. People who have invested in shares and through their commitment to a farmer-owned business are entitled to receive a dividend—a share of the profit. That is just as important to them as the price of their milk, and it is part of the return to their business. From what I have been saying, colleagues will not be surprised to learn that I am an enthusiast for farmer-owned businesses and think that they are the way forward. However, there is a limit to what the Government can do. We will exhort all we can, and if there are any barriers in the way we will do our very best to lift them, but we cannot force farmers to work together.

Finally, I come to the issue of tuberculosis. I am grateful for the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon about my personal commitment to the matter, which is completely and utterly undiminished. However, as he has said, we must get things right. A number of his presumptions about why we have not yet been able to make any final decision were accurate. We launched our consultation in September, and it concluded before Christmas. As I have said repeatedly in public, that consultation threw up some serious issues that must be dealt with because, as he rightly presumes, we would almost inevitably be faced with judicial review if we were to decide to go ahead with the badger cull. Several of those issues have taken some tackling. We are working with our own lawyers, and we have retained QCs to advise us. As he will know from his own eminent career, they have raised all sorts of issues to which we must have answers in the courtroom if the situation arises.

I can tell hon. Members that we are getting to the position whereby a decision can be announced and, as my hon. and learned Friend has rightly said, there will be an overall package of measures. This has been a good debate and I do not want to raise the politics of the matter too much but, apart from the issue of badgers, my other big criticism of the previous Government is the piecemeal approach that they adopted to tackling TB. They should have grasped the issue by introducing a comprehensive package and used every available tool in the toolbox, as many people in the industry have said.

I can tell hon. Members—this is not what my hon. and learned Friend wants to hear at this stage—that we hope to make a full announcement before the House rises in July. That will comprise a decision on the issue of badger culling as well as a wider package of measures. He picked up the point that I have been reported as implying that we might not be going ahead with a cull. As a lawyer, I am sure that he fully understands that if one has not made a decision, there has to be a question mark in both directions over what that decision might be. I say to him and hon. Members that, as I expect is blatantly obvious, that decision is not just for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Cabinet to make. Such a major decision is hugely important, and we must get it right. We need to ensure that the whole Government support the final decision, whatever it may be. As I have said, I assure hon. Members that the decision will be announced before the House rises in July.

As you have rightly said, Mr Hollobone, this has been a tremendously good and very important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to take a little longer than usual to elaborate on some of the issues. I hope that I have impressed on hon. Members the Government’s determination to tackle a number of these issues and to move forward. As I have said, it is not all in the Government’s hands, but what we can do, we will do. I pay respect to my hon. Friends’ commitment—those who are here now and those who have been in and out of this Chamber during the debate—and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is sitting behind me. He was the founding member of the all-party group on dairy farmers, but now he cannot discuss the matter, because he is acting in another guise. Many hon. Members rightly feel very strongly about the importance of our dairy sector. It is the biggest sector of British agriculture and long may it remain so.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich on securing the debate and thank all those who have taken part. The sitting is suspended until 11 o’clock.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explain her decision not to ban the use of wild animals in circuses.

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

I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is on ministerial business elsewhere. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for her question, because it allows me to draw the House’s attention to the written ministerial statement laid by my right hon. Friend at 9.30 this morning.

During oral questions last Thursday, and in the written ministerial statement on Friday, my right hon. Friend and I referred to a current case against the Austrian Government relating to their ban on circuses. However, we now understand that the initiation of court proceedings against the Austrian Government has been delayed, although a case is in preparation and proceedings are expected to commence shortly. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I would be very happy to clarify the confusion that we might have caused. This does not, however, affect our policy to introduce a tough licensing regime. The very strong legal advice that we have received, which is consistent with the case being prepared against Austria, is that a total ban on wild animals in circuses might well be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union services directive and under our own Human Rights Act 1998—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must hear the Minister’s response.

[Mr Paice]

We believe that to have pursued a ban in the light of that legal advice would have been irresponsible.

[Mary Creagh]

As the Minister has said, the Secretary of State told the House at DEFRA questions last Thursday that

“the Austrian Government have been taken to court by a German circus company because of a breach of the EU services directive.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1347.]

Her written ministerial statement the following day repeated that allegation, yet today’s statement has confirmed that no legal challenge exists. The DEFRA big top is spinning out of control on these legal cases that do not exist, and hiding behind human rights legislation—

[Mary Creagh]

It is the Department that is pathetic.

Given that everything read on the internet should not be trusted, for the future avoidance of doubt will the Minister place in the Library the evidence and the legal advice he has received? The Austrian embassy in London confirms that there was a legal challenge against Austria by the Commission, but it was closed in 2005. The European ombudsman closed the case in 2010.

This House relies on Ministers giving us accurate and timely information, so will he take the opportunity to apologise for misleading the House and the British public and will he stop hiding behind some circus owners who, after six years of failed national and European legal challenges, might well bring another case? That provides no reason not to ban wild animals in British circuses.

There is a further point. The Minister wants councils to license circuses, but there is a problem: circuses move from place to place, so conditions might be adequate in one town, but not in another. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government proposes to remove the powers of local authorities to prosecute owners for animal cruelty as part of his so-called review of the “burdens” on local authorities. He is proposing a scheme that gives authorities the power to license, but no ability to prosecute owners if cases of animal cruelty are discovered.

This is another all-singing, all-dancing disaster from the worst-performing Department in government. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs briefed the Daily Express on 3 April that the Department wanted a ban; the Minister’s Back Benchers and the rest of the House want a ban: it is time for another DEFRA U-turn and a ban on wild animals in British circuses.

[Mr Paice]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s record of events is somewhat distorted. We have not claimed that the case brought by the European Commission was anything to do with our decision. I referred specifically to a case that we understand is being prepared, as I have explained, by the European Circus Association against the Austrian Government. I can assure her that my officials have spoken today to the lawyer acting for the European Circus Association to confirm the validity of that. As I have said, we also received advice from our lawyers that the ban could be inconsistent with the provisions of the EU services directive. The hon. Lady has to ask, first, if this is so critical, why did her own Government not do it; and, secondly, if she were a Minister, would she be prepared to override the advice of her own lawyers and risk being taken to court for it, and subsequently having to withdraw the legislation she introduced?

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

In 1997, the all-party animal welfare group, of which I was then the chairman, produced a report on performing animals in circuses. I handed the report personally to the responsible Labour Home Office Minister. In the ensuing years, the Labour Government took no action whatever, so I do not think we need to take any lessons from Labour Members on this subject. That said, there is no case for performing wild animals in circuses. Given this stay of execution, will my right hon. Friend revisit the issue with a view to a total ban?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that the real issue is the welfare of animals in circuses. That is why our policy remains as it was clearly announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Friday. A strict licensing regime has the potential to reduce or eliminate the use of wild animals in circuses if the owners cannot meet the tough standards that we will require, on which we will consult. That can be done quickly, whereas a ban would require primary legislation—and we are all well aware of the time scale that involves.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about human rights, but what about animal rights? Do this Government not care about the welfare of wild animals, which have no powers whatever to exert for their own welfare? Would not the best possible course of action be for the Government to impose a ban and cope with any complications if they arise later? What we want is action from the Government, not subordination to lawyers.

[Mr Paice]

It is a sad but important fact that although this House passes laws, as indeed does the European Union, it is for the courts to interpret those laws. If the advice of our lawyers is that the courts might well interpret a ban as unlawful, we must heed that advice. That is what we have done, and that is why we have produced just as tough a regime through the use of licences—which, as I have said, could well mean that animals do not stay in circuses if their owners cannot meet the standards required.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I must tell the Minister that this is just not good enough. Hiding behind 13 years of Labour failure is not a justification for maintaining the present position.

Last Friday, DEFRA—the Department for error, failure and rotten administration—issued a statement that was not correct, and I am not prepared to go along with the clarification that attempted to involve Austria. Does the Minister not accept that this barbaric activity has no place in civilised society?

[Mr Paice]

I am more than happy to confirm my personal view that wild animals do not belong in circuses. The real point, however, is that we are taking action that we can take now and as a result of which, I suspect, few if any wild animals will remain in circuses. If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) is wrong. In 2009, when I was Minister of State at DEFRA, we initiated a consultation, in response to which 94.5 % of people said that they wanted the use of wild animals in circuses to be banned. We gave a commitment that we would do that if we were returned to office. The Minister is also—[Interruption.] Will Members allow me to ask my question?

In 2005, the European circus proprietors took action against the Austrian Government at Commission level. When that action failed in 2007, they invoked the European ombudsman, who found in 2009 that the Commission had been correct. I have been told by the Born Free Foundation, Animal Defenders International and the RSPCA that the Austrian Government said yesterday that no legal action was pending. Will the Minister clarify the position?

[Mr Paice]

I can confirm that officials from my Department have spoken to the attorney acting for the European Circus Association, that it is developing a case, and that it expects to issue proceedings against the Austrian Government in the next few weeks.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am delighted to report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently visiting the Pickering “slowing the flow” project at the request of North Yorkshire county council.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there will not be a knee-jerk reaction banning all wild animals in circuses until we have taken the best possible legal advice? Is it not a little hypocritical of Parliament to receive, in the House of Commons, performers from circuses that use wild animals, and then to reject those very performers?

[Mr Paice]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Any Government must take serious heed of the legal advice they are given. Any Ministers who wilfully ignore such advice and risk the Government’s being taken to court and losing are, in my view, neglecting their duty. We have made the right decision: we have taken swift action to deal with the issue of the welfare of circus animals, and I believe that that is the right course.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

We are well aware that many Members on the Government Benches like torturing animals, but is the Government’s position that if someone in Europe challenges an issue, this Government—this Parliament—cannot act? I find it unbelievable that the Minister would take such a position.

[Mr Paice]

The fact is that we are part of the European Union, and we are obliged to comply with European Union law. If the hon. Gentleman does not like that, it is a matter for him. As I said earlier—to some ridicule from Opposition Members—our own Human Rights Act has an influence on the position, and it was passed by the Labour party, which ought to know what its legislation says.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I believe that a majority of my constituents would want a ban on wild animals in circuses. Will the Minister update the House on how many wild animals he estimates are in circuses, and whether the number has been increasing or decreasing in recent years?

[Mr Paice]

The latest estimate is that there are 39 such animals. Following the recent press exposure, there are now no elephants in our circuses. The last one, Nelly, who we saw being very badly treated, is now in a home.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Last Thursday, the Minister clearly stated to the House:

“There have been recent press reports that the Austrian Government have been taken to court for their attempt to ban wild animals in circuses, so our Government can hardly recommend something that might not be legal.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1344.]

There are only two possibilities: either the official gave him wrong advice, which I regret to say is not uncommon and in which case the official should go, or the Minister made the wrong judgment even though he had the facts, in which case the Minister should go. Which is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

What I said, as quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, is entirely correct. There were, or are—[Hon. Members: “Were!”] At that time, there were such newspaper reports, as I reported to the House, so that was a perfectly accurate statement. It now transpires that those newspaper reports, and therefore my comments, were incorrect. That is why I have come to the House to clarify the fact, which I have done.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to zoos in this country, which have steadily improved conditions for wild animals? For example, Twycross zoo in my constituency has wide open spaces for elephants, lions, tigers and giraffes.

[Mr Paice]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about the measures taken by our zoos. If animals cease to be allowed in circuses, or if circuses are unable to meet the licensing conditions, I suspect many animals will move to zoos.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

I have to say that I think the Minister’s position is an extraordinarily cowardly one. May I remind him that there was legal advice against a seal ban—a ban on the import of seal products—yet the courage of member states led to that being overturned? There was also legal advice against the ban on the import of cat and dog fur, but, again, the courage of individual member states led to that being overturned. May we have a bit of spine from this Government, and will they respect the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country and ban now these wild animals in circuses?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady needs to reflect on the proceedings she has just mentioned, because they are very different from that which is under discussion now. Those situations involved European member states taking action at European level, whereas this situation involves a single member state, and we believe that if we take this action we may well be infringing European law, to which we are committed.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

A reference in Friday’s statement to the legal context of a ban is relevant only if the Department had been seriously considering a ban. Will the Minister therefore enlighten the House about that and tell us whether the Government would review the situation and consider an outright ban if the legal impediment could be overcome?

[Mr Paice]

I assure my hon. Friend that we considered all options, because we had the benefit of the consultation that the previous Government had initiated and the responses to it. Clearly, however, on the basis of the information and advice we received, we believed a ban was not the right way to proceed. We wanted to be able to act swiftly, and we can do that through a very strict licensing regime. I must repeat to the House that very tough standards will be imposed on how these animals can be kept, and it is possible that circus owners will not be able to meet those standards, in which case we will have achieved a ban without having to pass primary legislation.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The people in my constituency who protested when the Bobby Roberts circus appeared there would be stunned by the pathetic defence the Minister has put up today. Quite apart from the fact that he got the name of the elephant wrong, can he tell us why we should rely on his defence when he cannot tell us which bit of the Human Rights Act enshrines the right to be cruel to animals?

[Mr Paice]

That question does not really deserve an answer. The hon. Lady knows full well that no bit of the Human Rights Act says that, but other bits of the Human Rights Act could be infringed by a ban on wild animals in circuses.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I urge the Government to think again. A performing circus is simply no place for magnificent wild animals such as lions and tigers and the public overwhelmingly agree. The Minister mentions the possible obstacles of primary legislation and legal challenge. May I put it to him that if he took the bold step of proposing a total ban, he would find a great deal of cross-party agreement for that primary legislation? Indeed, were there to be subsequent legal challenges in the courts, he would also have the support of the House.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. Of course I appreciate, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that there is very strong public support for a ban as well as support across the parties in this House, but Ministers must take all the issues into account, including the legal advice to which I have referred and on which we believe that we have acted.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

If the Minister will not introduce a ban, will he at least consider extending the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 so that circus animals have the same rights and protections as zoo animals?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to agree to consider that. Circus animals are, of course, covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which enshrined the five freedoms, but if further issues arise from the 1981 Act I am more than happy to consider them. While I am on the subject of licensing, Mr Speaker, may I say that although the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred to local government, this is not a local government issue? The inspectors would be DEFRA inspectors appointed by us.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I hope that the Minister understands the frustration of Members and our constituents when it seems sometimes that the script of prevarication is written by officials and does not change, whoever is in government. Will the Minister at the very least publish the legal advice on which this decision rests?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who must make that decision.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

On whose authority did the official at DEFRA phone up the lawyer of the European Circus Association to find out whether there was a preparation in the pipeline to make a legal challenge? Will he confirm that if that challenge continues to be in the pipeline, his Department will continue to do nothing, which gives the association a perverse incentive to make it last as long as possible?

[Mr Paice]

The answer to the first question is that my noble Friend Lord Henley is responsible for this policy within the Department. The answer to the second question, which is completely fallacious, is that we are not doing nothing. We have already made it clear that we will introduce a tough licensing regime soon.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Minister not aware that advisers, including legal ones, advise and Ministers decide? In reaching this decision today, he appears weak-kneed. He has agreed to see one of his hon. Friends afterwards on the question of legal advice, but perhaps he could include an Opposition Member in that meeting. There can be nothing in the legal advice that is remotely binding on this issue and he is failing to respond to the feeling in the country and in the House, which goes way beyond the number of animals involved. It is a question of principle.

[Mr Paice]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, and of course Ministers must make the final decision. We accept that responsibility. Advice to Ministers can sometimes be fairly evenly balanced and sometimes pretty heavily balanced in favour of one side or the other. The outcome of the ministerial decision is likely to depend on that.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

Annual Report of the Veterinary Products Committee and its Sub-Committees 2010

James Paice Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

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

I have received the annual report of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committees 2010, which has been published today.

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

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